From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] 2019.02 performance
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:05:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190312090518.692f21a9@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1552341542.7410.20.camel@impinj.com>
Hello,
First of all, thanks a *lot* for sharing this kind of analysis. This is
very useful.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:59:03 +0000
Trent Piepho <tpiepho@impinj.com> wrote:
> With 2018.02, I had to disable the package size and related hooks as
> they were too slow: over half the build time. As I'm sure some
> remember, there was a thread about it and performance was
> improved. Here's the results with 2019.02. I'm using a real config
> for a product we have and testing on a reasonably modern native Linux
> workstation with a decent NVMe SSD and a four core processor. Using
> ccache, which had already built the software.
A hot ccache will drastically decrease the time of the "build" step of
each package, and make the "configure" and "install" steps look
comparatively very long. A build without ccache support or with a cold
cache will show a much larger "build" time I believe.
> Breakdown by build step (host/stage/target/images mean install same),
> across all packages:
>
> configure 666.223
> build 381.480
> host 122.191
> extract 57.489
> target 57.039
> stage 28.356
> patch 9.711
> postimage 9.008
> finalize 6.396
> images 0.063
> download 0.022
>
>
> The single threaded configure and cmake scripts remain the killer,
> through total of all install steps is about 2/3 of the build step time.
>
> Breakdown for the global instrumentation hooks, across all packages and
> build steps:
>
> check_host_rpath 64.345
> step_pkg_size 32.992
> check_bin_arch 26.286
> step_check_build_dir 8.365
> step_time 7.895
>
> pkg_size is much more reasonable now. In total, these are about 10.2%
> of the total build time.
10% just for the instrumentation is still a lot. Our of 22 minutes of
your build time, it's still ~2 minutes. The clear dominating factor
here is check_host_rpath. If I'm reading the check-host-rpath
correctly, we are checking all files in $(HOST_DIR) at the end of the
build of every package. Couldn't this be optimized by using the list of
files installed by a package, like we do for check-bin-arch ?
I think that back when check-host-rpath we introduced, we did not had
the list of files installed by host packages. But now that we do,
perhaps we should use it ?
For the other ones, I don't immediately see any easy optimization
route, except perhaps writing some dedicated C programs instead of
using the slower shell scripts forking like crazy.
Best regards,
Thomas Petazzoni
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-12 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-11 21:59 [Buildroot] 2019.02 performance Trent Piepho
2019-03-12 8:05 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2019-03-12 9:57 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2019-03-12 20:30 ` Trent Piepho
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190312090518.692f21a9@windsurf \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.