[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7016b011-cab3-4fbd-9fa7-19dd0123c989@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 10:37:55 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>, dwarves@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, masahiroy@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman
<eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, msuchanek@...e.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] kbuild: bpf: Do not run pahole with -j on 32bit userspace
On 26. 08. 24, 19:03, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:57:22AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 22. 08. 24, 17:24, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 11:55:05AM +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
>>> I stumbled on this limitation as well when trying to build the kernel on
>>> a Libre Computer rk3399-pc board with only 4GiB of RAM, there I just
>>> created a swapfile and it managed to proceed, a bit slowly, but worked
>>> as well.
>>
>> Here, it hits the VM space limit (3 G).
>
> right, in my case it was on a 64-bit system, so just not enough memory,
> not address space.
>
>>> Please let me know if what is in the 'next' branch of:
>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/devel/pahole/pahole.git
>
>>> Works for you, that will be extra motivation to move it to the master
>>> branch and cut 1.28.
>
>> on 64bit (-j1):
>> * master: 3.706 GB
>> (* master + my changes: 3.559 GB)
>> * next: 3.157 GB
>
>> on 32bit:
>> * master-j1: 2.445 GB
>> * master-j16: 2.608 GB
>> * master-j32: 2.811 GB
>> * next-j1: 2.256 GB
>> * next-j16: 2.401 GB
>> * next-j32: 2.613 GB
>>
>> It's definitely better. So I think it could work now, if the thread count
>> was limited to 1 on 32bit. As building with -j10, -j20 randomly fails on
>> random machines (32bit processes only of course). Unlike -j1.
>
> Cool, I just merged a patch from Alan Maguire that should help with the
> parallel case, would be able to test it? It is in the 'next' branch:
Not much helping.
On my box (as all previous runs):
next-j1 2.242
next-j16 2.808
next-j32 2.646
On a build host:
next-j1: 2.242
next-j16: 2.824
next-j20: 2.902 (crash)
next-j32: 2.902 (crash)
--
js
suse labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists