From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.1031.1623778693852248925 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:38:14 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=k3BLoD3k; spf=pass (domain: gmail.com, ip: 209.85.214.179, mailfrom: raj.khem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id e1so8836289plh.8; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:38:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VohProjJGW/SyFKvg5uxm2WmcO8ZH6Bpuv223+O5YKg=; b=k3BLoD3kgsPqaLgJvSMnRKJukvtanEYyNtfoFAe+Ko9x4XscqSA3XVscKRDrSGvOnC VYF+dziJhianp2VI9NW/mI17Txj0WeWxVHE02UdfD5iH+8Uq0fo4kwUU2QvizOf/R7lP nkNG26hEQZGJuSnkCfmH4OaEoWVVvyxBTnXoWSq4cNFTlT6AY+mr+Tq19bA3PCvo0iXW fB5w0AZiZj7lQEle/3Bv+MuE+Knc0lDZN3RieYtLbyKs/9kcSJsgzrm1rcVywsEJjfX5 o5hvZflcQSOYxDyEbd5VJOf0mGmIVgCGS5DZTtC89K5YiovAJ9Fp5ZQgB7zyn+13mhTD n+RA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VohProjJGW/SyFKvg5uxm2WmcO8ZH6Bpuv223+O5YKg=; b=HyHfZ8ifQxz0cTUC5GRlHNK705iEFUc/cgGHU416xMYWhdgRWDI0tOeuKcEZ8dXs/X EmxlBSngjuoHf8exy7qnas9npj50rkJXfH6F8xCbeYeVPlZJVj7QTaCNvKtxAA0dQrJ/ Ub3DChPvIwMIbrnSexVru+5yFQfCei53yn1sD/qMRzx6GgFkW3XfDoHYF/RI+kXWAwPc wLCJBuXPSoc+/DQpdAhYNLL60ImNqnethP2x0dl8lKz9Zc9y7NOLedx6TI92JBivdOUe M0YD9YvfPyIfuUruBxqmM32nwxcpGo4pwnQyLwfvhi9MlRn2e+6MoFqe45kiNSq8a/VZ PBcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jIcmJS/WT3z/oXP4yQnEVYJbxAUMmGybls5o0daBvOfEo4Iet Y6grnSv+OlL2C6gLcOyhAVnjD4pUJ3r4zg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwp2d5Tau5ez1wleoR6hztlEm6H2BoQPj3QyvuGXDkOS0tBr5Jm3YWydUb9YrfPrKl8z1X06A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9bc4:: with SMTP id b4mr6103703pjw.42.1623778692829; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:9200:a0f0:d088:fa89:ac40:a9cc? ([2601:646:9200:a0f0:d088:fa89:ac40:a9cc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k15sm3272589pjf.32.2021.06.15.10.38.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [yocto] [poky] [PATCH] local.conf.sample: disable prelink To: Alexander Kanavin , Richard Purdie , Mark Hatle Cc: poky@lists.yoctoproject.org, Yocto-mailing-list References: <20210615081225.1734033-1-alex.kanavin@gmail.com> <5ed9e1d2676d4d31289ebaf2ec3b492c1daa88a7.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: "Khem Raj" Organization: HIMVIS LLC Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:38:10 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/15/21 8:21 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 10:55, Alexander Kanavin > wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 10:48, Richard Purdie > > wrote: > > I appreciate the desire simply to delete/disable anything that > causes issues > but in this case I draw the line and my answer is no. It works > fine in the > vast majority of usage. > > > But where are the benchmarks that show it's actually beneficial? And > commitment from someone to maintain it and address open issues > (there are more than just this one)? > > > I went ahead and ran some quick benchmarks myself. Specifically: > > 1. Running 'free' after things have settled down at boot: > > a) without prelink > core-image-sato-sdk >                total        used        free      shared  buff/cache > available > Mem:          489352      152104      236284         472      100964 >  323824 > core-image-ptest-fast >               total        used        free      shared  buff/cache > available > Mem:        1004680       43456      927688         256       33536 >  941156 > > b) with prelink > core-image-sato-sdk >                total        used        free      shared  buff/cache > available > Mem:          489352      153048      235544         468      100760 >  322900 > core-image-ptest-fast >               total        used        free      shared  buff/cache > available > Mem:        1004680       44444      928128         256       32108 >  940168 > > 2. Running -c testimage > > a) without prelink > core-image-sato-sdk () - Ran 66 tests in 96.693s > core-image-sato-sdk () - Ran 66 tests in 96.469s > core-image-sato-sdk () - Ran 66 tests in 94.994s > core-image-ptest-fast () - Ran 66 tests in 583.767s > core-image-ptest-fast () - Ran 66 tests in 576.564s > core-image-ptest-fast () - Ran 66 tests in 576.797s > > b) with prelink > core-image-sato-sdk () - Ran 66 tests in 96.390s > core-image-sato-sdk () - Ran 66 tests in 96.615s > core-image-sato-sdk () - Ran 66 tests in 95.596s > core-image-ptest-fast () - Ran 66 tests in 576.248s > core-image-ptest-fast () - Ran 66 tests in 574.618s > core-image-ptest-fast () - Ran 66 tests in 576.760s > I think the advantage is not on high end CPUs but more on less powerful ones, so perhaps trying it on something like rpi0 or lower would be good > So the memory usage is actually *better* without prelink. And any timing > benefits are lost in statistical noise, in these tests at least. > > So I do not think it is wrong to question the usefulness of this > feature. I'd like to hear Mark's take on this, as prelink-cross is > primarily his work, he's put a lot of effort into it, and I would want > to know where the benefits are. Note that Red Hat abandoned prelink in > 2013, and prelink-cross likewise hasn't seen any commits for two years. > > Alex > > > >