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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 21:59:51 +0100 From: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.com> To: Ivan Babrou <ivan@...udflare.com> Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpupower: add Makefile dependencies for install targets Am Donnerstag, 7. Januar 2021, 18:42:25 CET schrieb Ivan Babrou: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:07 AM Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.com> wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 5. Januar 2021, 00:57:18 CET schrieb Ivan Babrou: > > > This allows building cpupower in parallel rather than serially. > > > > cpupower is built serially: > > > > [ make clean ] > > > > time make > > real 0m3,742s > > user 0m3,330s > > sys 0m1,105s > > > > [ make clean ] > > > > time make -j10 > > real 0m1,045s > > user 0m3,153s > > sys 0m1,037s > > > > Only advantage I see is that you can call > > make install-xy > > targets without calling the corresponding build target > > make xy > > similar to the general install target: > > install: all install-lib ... > > > > Not sure anyone needs this and whether all targets > > successfully work this way. > > If you'd show a useful usecase example... > > We build a bunch of kernel related tools (perf, cpupower, bpftool, > etc.) from our own top level Makefile, propagating parallelism > downwards like one should. I still do not understand why you do not simply build: Also if I call this from /tools directory I get a quick build: make -j20 cpupower Can you please show the make calls, ideally with a timing to better understand and also to reproduce the advantages this patch introduces. >From what I can see, it only helps if one calls "sub-install" targets directly? And I still do not understand why things should be more parallel now. > Without this patch we have to remove parallelism for cpupower, Why? > which doesn't seem like a very clean thing > to do, especially if you consider that it's 3x faster with parallelism > enabled in wall clock terms. Sure, you want to build in parallel. I still do not understand how this patch helps in this regard. BTW, I recently had a bunch of userspace tools Makefile patches. I'd like to add you to CC for a review if they are not submitted already. Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists