linux-kernel - Re: powerpc allyesconfig / allmodconfig linux-next next-20160729

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

Message-ID: <6327068.NbTmhQA6XD@wuerfel>
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:04:00 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Alan Modra <amodra@...il.com>
Subject: Re: powerpc allyesconfig / allmodconfig linux-next next-20160729 - next-20160729 build failures

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:43:20 PM CEST Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 22:13:28 +0200
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 2:44:29 PM CEST Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Hi Arnd,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:52:48PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:  
> > > > From my first look, it seems that all of lib/*.o is now getting linked
> > > > into vmlinux, while we traditionally leave out everything from lib/
> > > > that is not referenced.
> > > > 
> > > > I also see a noticeable overhead in link time, the numbers are for
> > > > a cache-hot rebuild after a successful allyesconfig build, using a
> > > > 24-way Opteron@...Ghz, just relinking vmlinux:
> > > > 
> > > > $ time make skj30 vmlinux # before
> > > > real	2m8.092s
> > > > user	3m41.008s
> > > > sys	0m48.172s
> > > > 
> > > > $ time make skj30 vmlinux # after
> > > > real	4m10.189s
> > > > user	5m43.804s
> > > > sys	0m52.988s  
> > > 
> > > Is it better when using rcT instead of rcsT?  
> > 
> > It seems to be noticeably better for the clean rebuild case, though
> > not as good as the original:
> > 
> > real	3m34.015s
> > user	5m7.104s
> > sys	0m49.172s
> > 
> > I've also tried now with my own patch applied as well (linking
> > each drivers/*/built-in.o into vmlinux rather than having them
> > linked into drivers/built-in.o first), but that makes no
> > difference.
> 
> I just want to come back to this, because I've subbmitted the thin
> archives kbuild patch, I wanted to make sure we're doing okay on
> ARM/ARM64. I cross compiled with my laptop.
> 
> For ARM64 allyesconfig:
> 
> After building then removing all built-in.o then rebuilding vmlinux:
> inclink
> time make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- -j8 vmlinux
> real    1m18.977s
> user    2m14.512s
> sys     0m29.704s
> 
> thinarc
> time make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- -j8 vmlinux
> real    1m18.433s
> user    2m6.128s
> sys     0m28.372s
> 
> 
> Final ld time
> inclink
> real    0m4.005s
> user    0m3.464s
> sys     0m0.536s
> 
> thinarc
> real    0m5.841s
> user    0m4.916s
> sys     0m0.916s
> 
> 
> Build directory size is of course much better (3953MB vs 5519MB).

Ok, looks great. Some downsides and some upsides here, but overall
I think this is a win.

> 
> For ARM, defconfig
> 
> After building then removing all built-in.o then rebuilding vmlinux:
> inclink
> real	0m19.593s
> user	0m22.372s
> sys	0m6.428s
> 
> thinarc
> real	0m18.919s
> user	0m21.924s
> sys	0m6.400s
> 
> 
> Final ld time
> inclink
> real	0m0.378s
> user	0m0.304s
> sys	0m0.076s
> 
> thinarc
> real    0m0.894s
> user    0m0.684s
> sys     0m0.200s

This also still seems fine.

> For both cases final link gets slower with thin archives. I guess there is some
> per-file overhead but I thought with --whole-archive it should not be that much
> slower. Still, overall time for main ar/ld phases comes out about the same in
> the end so I don't think it's too much problem. Unless ARM blows up significantly
> worse with a bigger config.

Unfortunately I think it does. I haven't tried your latest series yet,
but I think the total time for removing built-in.o and relinking went
up from around 4 minutes (already way too much) to 18 minutes for me.

> Linking with thin archives takes significantly more time in bfd hash lookup code.
> I haven't dug much further yet.

Can you try the ARM allyesconfig with thin archives? I'll follow up with two
patches: one to get ARM to link without thin archives, and one that I used
to get --gc-sections to work.

	Arnd