From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
To: yamada.masahiro@socionext.com, mmarek@suse.com
Cc: groeck@chromium.org, sjg@chromium.org, briannorris@chromium.org,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
Marcin Nowakowski <marcin.nowakowski@imgtec.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Mark Charlebois <charlebm@gmail.com>,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] kbuild: Cache exploratory calls to the compiler
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:37:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171004223717.3010-1-dianders@chromium.org> (raw)
This two-patch series attempts to speed incremental builds of the
kernel up by a bit. How much of a speedup you get depends a lot on
your environment, specifically the speed of your workstation and how
fast it takes to invoke the compiler.
In the Chrome OS build environment you get a really big win. For an
incremental build (via emerge) I measured a speedup from ~1 minute to
~35 seconds. ...but Chrome OS calls the compiler through a number of
wrapper scripts and also calls the kernel make at least twice for an
emerge (during compile stage and install stage), so it's a bit of a
worst case.
Perhaps a more realistic measure of the speedup others might see is
running "time make help > /dev/null" outside of the Chrome OS build
environment on my system. When I do this I see that it took more than
1.0 seconds before and less than 0.2 seconds after. So presumably
this has the ability to shave ~0.8 seconds off an incremental build
for most folks out there. While 0.8 seconds savings isn't huge, it
does make incremental builds feel a lot snappier.
Caveats from v1 still copied here, though with Masahiro Yamada's
suggestions from v1 this is starting to feel a little more baked and
I've even dropped the RFC from it (though extra testing still
appreciated):
Please note that I make no illusions of being a Makefile expert nor do
I have any belief that I fully understand the Linux kernel build
system. Please take this patch series as the start of a discussion
about whether others feel like this type of speedup is worthwhile and
how to best accomplish it. Specific things to note:
- I'm happy to paint the bikeshed any color that maintainers want. If
you'd like the cache named differently, in a slightly different
format, or you want me to adjust the spacing / names of Makefile
stuff then please just let me know.
- If this is totally the wrong approach and you have a better idea
then let me know. If you want something that's super complicated to
explain then feel free to post a replacement patch and I'm happy to
test.
- This patch definitely needs extra testing. I've tested it on a very
limited build environment and it seems to be working fine, but I
could believe that with some weird compiler options or on certain
architectures you might need some extra escaping here and there.
Changes in v2:
- Abstract at a different level (like shell-cached) per Masahiro Yamada
- Include ld-version, which I missed the first time
Douglas Anderson (2):
kbuild: Add a cache for generated variables
kbuild: Cache a few more calls to the compiler
Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt | 21 +++++++++
Makefile | 4 +-
scripts/Kbuild.include | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
3 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
--
2.14.2.920.gcf0c67979c-goog
next reply other threads:[~2017-10-04 22:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-04 22:37 Douglas Anderson [this message]
2017-10-04 22:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] kbuild: Add a cache for generated variables Douglas Anderson
2017-10-11 3:59 ` Masahiro Yamada
2017-10-11 16:20 ` Doug Anderson
2017-10-04 22:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] kbuild: Cache a few more calls to the compiler Douglas Anderson
2017-10-05 1:46 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] kbuild: Cache exploratory " Guenter Roeck
2017-10-05 7:52 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20171004223717.3010-1-dianders@chromium.org \
--to=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=charlebm@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=groeck@chromium.org \
--cc=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcin.nowakowski@imgtec.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mka@chromium.org \
--cc=mmarek@suse.com \
--cc=sjg@chromium.org \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox