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]

Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:28:35 +0200
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:     Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [4.9-rc1] Build-time 2x slower

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

I switched over to ***schedutil*** as default-cpufreq-governor with
v4.8 in my init-scripts.
Didn't try any other cpufreq-governor and had no time to play more
with this issue.

- Sedat -