linux-kernel - Re: [4.9-rc1] Build-time 2x slower

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: <CADDKRnCajbgsjB0w_qQhFq0gF8K5pk0u6syKA80z2C07F1S7JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:59:35 +0200
From:   Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [4.9-rc1] Build-time 2x slower

2016-10-19 17:29 GMT+02:00 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Additional info: I usally use schedutil governor.
>> If I switch to performance governor problems go away.
>> Maybe a cpufreq problem?
>
> Oh, I completely misread the original bug report, and then didn't read
> your confirmation email right.
>
> I thought you had a slower build of the different kernels (when
> building on the same kernel), and that the _build_ itself had slowed
> down for some reason. But you're actually saying that doing the _same_
> build actually takes longer when running on 4.9-rc1.

Exactly!

Btw: ondemand governor is also good.

> There are a few small cpufreq changes there in between commit
> 29fbff8698fc (that you reported was fine - please tell me I got _that_
> right, at least?) and 4.9-rc1.

Perfect! That's what I mean.

> Adding Rafael to the cc.
>
> That said, none of them look all that likely to me. It *would* be good
> if you could bisect it a bit (perhaps not fully, but a couple of
> bisection steps to narrow down what area it is).

I try that tomorrow.

Jörg