From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from bu3sch.de ([62.75.166.246]:38361 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759947AbZFKVOp (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:14:45 -0400 From: Michael Buesch To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: compat-wireless: ridiculous build speed Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:14:29 +0200 Cc: Jan Kiszka , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <4A30CE70.4050605@web.de> <200906112305.33675.mb@bu3sch.de> <43e72e890906111410n3766ceb7t4b4efda05730c693@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <43e72e890906111410n3766ceb7t4b4efda05730c693@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <200906112314.29464.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 11 June 2009 23:10:52 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Michael Buesch wrote: > > On Thursday 11 June 2009 20:48:13 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > while watching compat-wireless-2009-06-11 doing baby-steps building all > >> > its modules, I wonder what slows this down so horribly. No other > >> > external module build package I know is that slow (I would say *at > >> > least* one order of magnitude slower than normal). Is this really required? > >> > > >> > [ Hurray, it's finished! ] > >> > >> I think the many depmod -ae are the culprit. This is in place to > >> account for all the crap of madwifi which may be present or older > >> drivers which have been renamed. > >> > >> This could be improved. Patches are welcomed. > >> > >> Ps. Try building with make -j 2, etc. > > > > -j does not help. It will hardly build in parallel then. > > It works swell for me. The only thing that does not build in parellel > is the autoconf stuff but after its done with that step everything > builds as expected with -j 2. > > > There's something > > that serializes most of it (implicitly). > > You certain its just not the first part? I had written some patches to > make the first autoconf step into another step to then allow make -j > foo to work without a warning but that would involve another step. The > -j option does work for me though. Well, I never measured it, but I don't see any advantage when using -jX. Maybe that is because forever equals forever+1. What I do see, though, is that the per-cpu load is much higher when building the kernel itself with the same -j parameter. -- Greetings, Michael.