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: <CA+icZUVAAGWwyMnGwDqQd2660LoY6XboAxKk_f=jLjfWro_cHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:49:15 +0200
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com>,
        "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 5:29 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> My bad.
>

English is not my native language.
To clarify building whatever Linux-version "under Linux v4.9-rc1" means...
Running Linux v4.9-rc1...
( ...with schedutil as cpufreq-governor... )
and building software in this environment.

- Sedat -

> 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. 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).
>
>                  Linus