From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344DF6ABF7 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:45:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t3C8jirg024720; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:45:44 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id QeY95j38Qf-m; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:45:44 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t3C8jVet024704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:45:43 +0100 Message-ID: <1428828331.6976.14.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: openembedded-core Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:45:31 +0100 X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Performance regression (binutils and gold) X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:45:50 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To allow us to upgrade to the latest binutils we ended up enabling building of gold. Unfortunately this is clearly visible on our performance benchmarks, it leads to a 3-4 minute speed loss in overall build time :(. Locally, benchmarks for building binutils-cross show: Just ld: 95.87user 48.36system 1:05.66elapsed 219%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 162480maxresident)k 0inputs+1030184outputs (0major+7753895minor)pagefaults 0swaps with gold: 366.22user 67.25system 1:14.29elapsed 583%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 435488maxresident)k 248inputs+1205792outputs (1major+12572236minor)pagefaults 0swaps richard@dax:/media/build1/poky/build2$ So whilst it only takes 10 seconds longer overall for me on what is a pretty powerful machine, you can see a huge increase in user time and CPU usage. I believe that on our slower quad core performance benchmark machine, this equates to a few minutes. The question is therefore, do we have a better way to fix things? Is this performance drop acceptable? Cheers, Richard