linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] kernel.h further split

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: <YV8NLnoEZmdLVW5G@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 17:07:26 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] kernel.h further split

On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:47:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 03:59:08PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 02:51:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:34 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Meanwhile, Thorsten, can you have a look at my approach and tell if it
> > > makes sense?
> > 
> > No, do not use ccache when trying to benchmark the speed of kernel
> > builds, that tests the speed of your disk subsystem...
> 
> First rule of the measurement is to be sure WHAT we are measuring.
> And I'm pretty much explained WHAT and HOW. On the other hand, the
> kcbench can't answer to the question about C preprocessing speed
> without help of ccache or something similar.
> 
> Measuring complete build is exactly not what we want because of
> O(compilation) vs. o(C preprocessing) meaning that any fluctuation
> in the former makes silly to measure anything from the latter.
> 
> You see, my theory is proved by practical experiment:
> 
> $ kcbench -i 3 -j 64 -o $O -s $PWD --no-download -m
> Processor:           Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz [88 CPUs]
> Cpufreq; Memory:     powersave [intel_pstate]; 128823 MiB
> Linux running:       5.6.0-2-amd64 [x86_64]
> Compiler:            gcc (Debian 10.3.0-11) 10.3.0
> Linux compiled:      5.15.0-rc4
> Config; Environment: allmodconfig; CCACHE_DISABLE="1"
> Build command:       make vmlinux modules
> Filling caches:      This might take a while... Done
> Run 1 (-j 64):       464.07 seconds / 7.76 kernels/hour [P:6001%]
> Run 2 (-j 64):       464.64 seconds / 7.75 kernels/hour [P:6000%]
> Run 3 (-j 64):       486.41 seconds / 7.40 kernels/hour [P:5727%]
> 
> $ kcbench -i 3 -j 64 -o $O -s $PWD --no-download -m
> Processor:           Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz [88 CPUs]
> Cpufreq; Memory:     powersave [intel_pstate]; 128823 MiB
> Linux running:       5.6.0-2-amd64 [x86_64]
> Compiler:            gcc (Debian 10.3.0-11) 10.3.0
> Linux compiled:      5.15.0-rc4
> Config; Environment: allmodconfig; CCACHE_DISABLE="1"
> Build command:       make vmlinux modules
> Filling caches:      This might take a while... Done
> Run 1 (-j 64):       462.32 seconds / 7.79 kernels/hour [P:6009%]
> Run 2 (-j 64):       462.33 seconds / 7.79 kernels/hour [P:6006%]
> Run 3 (-j 64):       465.45 seconds / 7.73 kernels/hour [P:5999%]
> 
> In [41]: numpy.median(y1)
> Out[41]: 464.64
> 
> In [42]: numpy.median(y2)
> Out[42]: 462.33
> 
> Speedup: +0.5%

Good, you measured what actually matters here, the real compilation of
the code, not just the pre-processing of it.

thanks,

greg k-h