From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: yamada.masahiro@socionext.com, mmarek@suse.com,
groeck@chromium.org, sjg@chromium.org, briannorris@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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] kbuild: Cache exploratory calls to the compiler
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:52:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171005075243.zchjpo7qd7ueff4h@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171004223717.3010-1-dianders@chromium.org>
* Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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.
Very impressive!
> [...] ...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.
I don't think that's a worst case: incremental builds are very commonly used
during kernel development and kernel testing. (I'd even argue that the performnace
of incremental builds is one of the most important features of a build system.)
That it's called twice in the Chrome OS build system does not change the
proportion of the speedup.
> 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.
This is a huge deal!
FWIIW I have tested your patches and they work fine here. Here's the before/after
performance testing of various styles of build times of the scheduler.
First the true worst case is a full rebuild:
[ before ]
triton:~/tip> perf stat --null --repeat 3 --pre "make clean 2>/dev/null 2>&1" make kernel/sched/ >/dev/null
Performance counter stats for 'make kernel/sched/' (3 runs):
4.693974827 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.05% )
[ after ]
triton:~/tip> perf stat --null --repeat 3 --pre "make clean 2>/dev/null 2>&1" make kernel/sched/ >/dev/null
Performance counter stats for 'make kernel/sched/' (3 runs):
4.391769610 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.21% )
Still a ~6% speedup which is nice to have.
Then the best case, a fully cached rebuild of a specific subsystem - which I
personally do all the time when I don't remember whether I already built the
kernel or not:
[ before ]
triton:~/tip> taskset 1 perf stat --null --pre "sync" --repeat 10 make kernel/sched/ >/dev/null
Performance counter stats for 'make kernel/sched/' (10 runs):
0.439517157 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.14% )
[ after ]
triton:~/tip> taskset 1 perf stat --null --pre "sync" --repeat 10 make kernel/sched/ >/dev/null
Performance counter stats for 'make kernel/sched/' (10 runs):
0.148483807 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.57% )
A 300% speedup on my system!
So I wholeheartedly endorse the whole concept of caching build environment
invariants:
Tested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Thanks,
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-05 7:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-04 22:37 [PATCH v2 0/2] kbuild: Cache exploratory calls to the compiler Douglas Anderson
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 [this message]
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=20171005075243.zchjpo7qd7ueff4h@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=charlebm@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--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=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