Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*kernel\s+compile\s+time\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*kernel\s+compile\s+time\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: Simon Patience <sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:45:03 -0700; How many cpus does this machine have? Simon.; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00000.html (8,322 bytes)
2. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar); Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:16:41 -0700 (PDT); How stupid of me - 8 cpus, 128Mb (on 1 node). Kanoj; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00001.html (9,093 bytes)
3. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:36:00 -0700; Kanoj, earlier you had said the wall time looks bad. I don't understand. For the 1-way make, it took 13:28 == 808 seconds, of which 742sec were in user mode (> 90%) ... which is typical of large comp; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00003.html (10,405 bytes)
4. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar); Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:48:25 -0700 (PDT); 13:28 seconds for a 1 way make is just not an acceptable number. Refer to John's recent mail about AIM7 performance too. j6 is the best, as you can make out from the results. j4 and j8 both do worse; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00004.html (9,517 bytes)
5. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: Thomas Duffy <tduffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:11:32 -0700 (PDT); Question: is this using -j4 MAKE="make -j4" so that it will spawn 4 proccesses for every subdir? I have found that doing this yeilds about 60 compile proccesses on average during the build.; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00005.html (9,142 bytes)
6. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: "John Hawkes" <hawkes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:17:52 -0700; But if that time is dominated by user time (vs. kernel time), doesn't that suggest that the slow compiles are due to a combination of (1) a compiler comprised of inefficiently emitted code, and/or (; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00006.html (8,278 bytes)
7. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: "Leo Dagum" <dagum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:19:10 -0700; I think you guys may be neglecting the issue of the compiler itself. Does anyone have any idea how good (or bad) the optimized code generated by our mips-gnu compiler is? If it's not generating good; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00007.html (9,009 bytes)
8. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar); Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:40:28 -0700 (PDT); make -j4 ARCH=mips vmlinux. Kanoj; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00008.html (9,398 bytes)
9. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar); Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:42:32 -0700 (PDT); True. And the other culprit is probably all the locore code (like fast tlb handlers, inital syscall/intr/pagefault code) that executes before the timers are switched from user to kernel/system. Kano; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00009.html (8,673 bytes)
10. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar); Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT); Yes, you are right, we should probably think of this. Maybe its not that worthwhile thinking of single processor performance right now. Kanoj; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00010.html (9,244 bytes)
11. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:27:19 +0200; Ulf's lmbench results for a UP Origin kernel are significantly below what I achieve on my R5000 Indy. That's suspicious. I don't think all of the difference can be explained by 32-bit vs. 64-bit code; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00013.html (8,825 bytes)
12. kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar); Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 19:43:38 -0700 (PDT); Okay, after John tracked down the __kernel_clock_t size issue, and we implemented a sys32_times to translate from the kernel's view of 64 bit sized clock_t to the user's 32 bit view, here is the outp; /archives/linux-origin/2000-05/msg00086.html (6,891 bytes)
13. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar); Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 20:43:22 -0700 (PDT); Here's some more "time" results: make 742.60user 98.79system 13:28.03elapsed 104%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k0inputs+0outputs (497099major+616071minor)pagefaults 0swaps make -j4 741.31user; /archives/linux-origin/2000-05/msg00087.html (7,747 bytes)
14. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: Simon Patience <sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:45:03 -0700; How many cpus does this machine have? Simon.; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00047.html (8,378 bytes)
15. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar); Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:16:41 -0700 (PDT); How stupid of me - 8 cpus, 128Mb (on 1 node). Kanoj; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00048.html (9,122 bytes)
16. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan <ananth@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:36:00 -0700; Kanoj, earlier you had said the wall time looks bad. I don't understand. For the 1-way make, it took 13:28 == 808 seconds, of which 742sec were in user mode (> 90%) ... which is typical of large comp; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00050.html (10,434 bytes)
17. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kanoj Sarcar); Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:48:25 -0700 (PDT); 13:28 seconds for a 1 way make is just not an acceptable number. Refer to John's recent mail about AIM7 performance too. j6 is the best, as you can make out from the results. j4 and j8 both do worse; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00051.html (9,542 bytes)
18. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: Thomas Duffy <tduffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:11:32 -0700 (PDT); Question: is this using -j4 MAKE="make -j4" so that it will spawn 4 proccesses for every subdir? I have found that doing this yeilds about 60 compile proccesses on average during the build.; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00052.html (9,167 bytes)
19. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: "John Hawkes" <hawkes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:17:52 -0700; But if that time is dominated by user time (vs. kernel time), doesn't that suggest that the slow compiles are due to a combination of (1) a compiler comprised of inefficiently emitted code, and/or (; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00053.html (8,307 bytes)
20. Re: kernel compile time (score: 1): Author: "Leo Dagum" <dagum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:19:10 -0700; I think you guys may be neglecting the issue of the compiler itself. Does anyone have any idea how good (or bad) the optimized code generated by our mips-gnu compiler is? If it's not generating good; /archives/linux-origin/2000-06/msg00054.html (9,079 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]