[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+icZUU2TWCzeB48XARaCaufVqzLehgs4HNz05i=t6HpavpUqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:20:44 +0200
From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com>,
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 Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 09:41:34 AM Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 06:59:35 PM Jörg Otte 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.
>> >
>> > Well, please try commit ef98988ba369 (Merge tag 'pm-extra-4.9-rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm) which is the
>> > merge introducing the late cpufreq changes. If the issue is there, please
>> > try to revert commit 899bb6642f2a (cpufreq: skip invalid entries when searching
>> > the frequency) which is the only cpufreq one that may matter for the schedutil
>> > governor (and I have one fix for that commit queued up already).
>> >
>>
>> Is "cpufreq: fix overflow in cpufreq_table_find_index_dl()" the fix
>> you are speaking of?
>>
>> Fixes: 899bb6642f2a (cpufreq: skip invalid entries when searching the frequency)
>
> Yes.
>
>> If yes, can you add a hint in the commit message describing the impact
>> like here a slow-down of building a linux-kernel.
>> With a reference to this ML-thread?
>
> I will if that turns out to be the case.
>
I have tried the revert and the patch from Sergey Senozhatsk pending
in linux-pm.git#linux-next.
Both fixes the issue for me.
Feel free to give appropriate credits and many thanks to Jörg.
I tried 'make -j3' in my last build and it was approx. 5mins faster in
my customized setup.
Will switch back to 2 parallel-make-jobs - it's safer for me.
Can you explain why this issue was not seen when building under Linux v4.8.x?
[1] says...
Cc: 4.8+ <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.8+
Thanks.
- sed@ -
[1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/commit/?h=linux-next&id=f7a7a80ae30521b65a6dfc98df45d3ec9e238d73
Powered by blists - more mailing lists