linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 39/52] tools/perf/build: Automatically build in parallel, based on number of CPUs in the syst

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:22:19 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Pádraig Brady <P@...igBrady.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	jiri@...il.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/52] tools/perf/build: Automatically build in parallel,
 based on number of CPUs in the syst


* Pádraig Brady <P@...igBrady.com> wrote:

> On 10/08/2013 10:02 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > +ifeq ($(JOBS),)
> > +  JOBS := $(shell grep -c ^processor /proc/cpuinfo 2>/dev/null)
> 
> nproc is probably ubiquitous enough to use now
> (available since coreutils 8.1 (end of 2009))
> 
> As well as being more concise, it will take
> account of offline CPUs etc.

/proc/cpuinfo takes account of offline CPUs as well:

  # grep -c ^processor /proc/cpuinfo 2>/dev/null
  16

  # echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/online
  # grep -c ^processor /proc/cpuinfo 2>/dev/null
  15

  # echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/online
  # grep -c ^processor /proc/cpuinfo 2>/dev/null
  16

But nproc is indeed a better choice:

1)

It is scheduler syscall based and will thus will work in limited 
environments as well, for example when /proc is not mounted.

2)

It will also properly detect affinity-limited environments:

  # taskset 1 nproc
  1

3)

It is also faster than grepping /proc/cpuinfo:

  # perf stat --null --repeat 100 nproc >/dev/null
   Performance counter stats for 'nproc' (100 runs):
       0.000652928 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.53% )

versus:

  # perf stat --null --repeat 100 grep -c ^processor /proc/cpuinfo >/dev/null
    Performance counter stats for 'grep -c ^processor /proc/cpuinfo' (100 runs):
       0.001037034 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.32% )

so with 0.652 msecs versus 1.037 msecs it's about 60% faster than grep.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/