Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-23T00:12:25Z

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 05:49:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 17:17:08 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 May 2020 18:35:22 +0100 Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > [+Marco and Boris]
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:31:19AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > After merging the tip tree, all my linux-next builds took signficantly
> > > > longer and used much more memory. In some cases, builds would seg fault
> > > > due to running out of memory :-(
> > > >
> > > > I have eventaully bisected it to commit
> > > >
> > > > cdd28ad2d811 ("READ_ONCE: Use data_race() to avoid KCSAN instrumentation")
> > > >
> > > > For my (e.g.) x86_64 allmodconfig builds (cross compiled on PowerPC le,
> > > > -j80) the elapsed time went from around 9 minutes to over 17 minutes
> > > > and the maximum resident size (as reported by /usr/bin/time) from around
> > > > 500M to around 2G (I saw lots of cc1 processes over 2G in size).
> > > >
> > > > For tomorrow's linux-next (well, later today :-() I will revert that
> > > > commit (and its child) when I merge the tip tree.
> > >
> > > Sorry about that, seems we can't avoid running into compiler problems with
> > > this lot. The good news is that there's a series to fix this here:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200521142047.169334-1-elver@google.com
> > >
> > > so hopefully this be fixed in -tip soon (but I agree that reverting the
> > > thing in -next in the meantime makes sense).
> >
> > Unfortunately, the revert didn't work, so instead I have used the tip
> > tree from next-20200518 for today (hopefully this will all be sorted
> > out by Monday).
>
> And the rcu tree has merged part of the tip tree that contains the
> offending commits, so I have used the version fo the rcu tree from
> next-20200519 for today.

Please accept my apologies for my part of this problem! I don't see
the slowdowns on my normal test system (possibly due to gcc 4.8.5),
but I do see them on my laptop.

Marco, Thomas, is there any better setup I can provide Stephen? Or
is the next-20200519 -rcu tree the best we have right now?

Thanx, Paul