From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@primarydata.com>
Subject: Re: Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:18:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b850dea-fdea-cc93-65fb-ba5e2082bcb9@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171204044842.0edbc51b@vmware.local.home>
>> Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing
>> could be omitted?
>
> Why would you care more about the time it takes to compile the kernel,
> than the time it takes for executing it?
I am also interested in the evolution of compilation time frames.
> Benchmarks are all about performance of a running kernel,
This is generally reasonable.
> nobody compares benchmarks of the time it takes to compile it.
I guess that the situation can be occasionally different there.
> Sure, we like to make the compile times quicker
Good to know …
> (heck, I wrote "make localmodconfig" for just that purpose),
Thanks.
> but we never favor compiler time over execution time.
I imagine that the speed expectations could be adjusted during software development,
couldn't they?
> In fact, if we can improve the execution performance by sacrificing compile time,
> we are happy to do that.
I guess that you would like to consider some constraints there.
>>> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
>>> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
>>> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
>>> and the kernel build will break otherwise.
>>
>> * Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?
>
> No.
Will any other contributors take another look?
>> * How do you think about to improve the error handling there?
>
> It works just fine as is.
I hope that further software improvements can be achieved also for this use case.
> Errors that can be detected at build time are 100 times better
> than detecting them at execution time.
I agree to such a general view.
Will an other (or no) error message be more appropriate?
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 10:18:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b850dea-fdea-cc93-65fb-ba5e2082bcb9@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171204044842.0edbc51b@vmware.local.home>
>> Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing
>> could be omitted?
>
> Why would you care more about the time it takes to compile the kernel,
> than the time it takes for executing it?
I am also interested in the evolution of compilation time frames.
> Benchmarks are all about performance of a running kernel,
This is generally reasonable.
> nobody compares benchmarks of the time it takes to compile it.
I guess that the situation can be occasionally different there.
> Sure, we like to make the compile times quicker
Good to know …
> (heck, I wrote "make localmodconfig" for just that purpose),
Thanks.
> but we never favor compiler time over execution time.
I imagine that the speed expectations could be adjusted during software development,
couldn't they?
> In fact, if we can improve the execution performance by sacrificing compile time,
> we are happy to do that.
I guess that you would like to consider some constraints there.
>>> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
>>> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
>>> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
>>> and the kernel build will break otherwise.
>>
>> * Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?
>
> No.
Will any other contributors take another look?
>> * How do you think about to improve the error handling there?
>
> It works just fine as is.
I hope that further software improvements can be achieved also for this use case.
> Errors that can be detected at build time are 100 times better
> than detecting them at execution time.
I agree to such a general view.
Will an other (or no) error message be more appropriate?
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: elfring at users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
Subject: [Linux-kselftest-mirror] Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:18:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b850dea-fdea-cc93-65fb-ba5e2082bcb9@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171204044842.0edbc51b@vmware.local.home>
>> Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing
>> could be omitted?
>
> Why would you care more about the time it takes to compile the kernel,
> than the time it takes for executing it?
I am also interested in the evolution of compilation time frames.
> Benchmarks are all about performance of a running kernel,
This is generally reasonable.
> nobody compares benchmarks of the time it takes to compile it.
I guess that the situation can be occasionally different there.
> Sure, we like to make the compile times quicker
Good to know …
> (heck, I wrote "make localmodconfig" for just that purpose),
Thanks.
> but we never favor compiler time over execution time.
I imagine that the speed expectations could be adjusted during software development,
couldn't they?
> In fact, if we can improve the execution performance by sacrificing compile time,
> we are happy to do that.
I guess that you would like to consider some constraints there.
>>> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
>>> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
>>> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
>>> and the kernel build will break otherwise.
>>
>> * Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?
>
> No.
Will any other contributors take another look?
>> * How do you think about to improve the error handling there?
>
> It works just fine as is.
I hope that further software improvements can be achieved also for this use case.
> Errors that can be detected at build time are 100 times better
> than detecting them at execution time.
I agree to such a general view.
Will an other (or no) error message be more appropriate?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
Subject: [Linux-kselftest-mirror] Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:18:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b850dea-fdea-cc93-65fb-ba5e2082bcb9@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
Message-ID: <20171204101826.ZzmmG7-xuwF_Ipsu8Q1J5r2CNJ_Ac-EX7t0uhv-yDAs@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171204044842.0edbc51b@vmware.local.home>
>> Will the compilation be a bit quicker when extra data processing
>> could be omitted?
>
> Why would you care more about the time it takes to compile the kernel,
> than the time it takes for executing it?
I am also interested in the evolution of compilation time frames.
> Benchmarks are all about performance of a running kernel,
This is generally reasonable.
> nobody compares benchmarks of the time it takes to compile it.
I guess that the situation can be occasionally different there.
> Sure, we like to make the compile times quicker
Good to know …
> (heck, I wrote "make localmodconfig" for just that purpose),
Thanks.
> but we never favor compiler time over execution time.
I imagine that the speed expectations could be adjusted during software development,
couldn't they?
> In fact, if we can improve the execution performance by sacrificing compile time,
> we are happy to do that.
I guess that you would like to consider some constraints there.
>>> In fact, we do a lot of tricks to make sure that things work the way
>>> we expect it to, because we add broken code that only gets compiled out
>>> when gcc optimizes the code the way we expect it to be,
>>> and the kernel build will break otherwise.
>>
>> * Can this goal be also achieved without the addition of “broken code”?
>
> No.
Will any other contributors take another look?
>> * How do you think about to improve the error handling there?
>
> It works just fine as is.
I hope that further software improvements can be achieved also for this use case.
> Errors that can be detected at build time are 100 times better
> than detecting them at execution time.
I agree to such a general view.
Will an other (or no) error message be more appropriate?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-04 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-07 16:53 [PATCH RFC v1] nfs/write: Use common error handling code in nfs_lock_and_join_requests() SF Markus Elfring
2017-11-07 16:53 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 14:15 ` Difficulties for compilation without extra optimisation SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 14:15 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 14:15 ` elfring
2017-12-03 14:15 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 15:17 ` Trond Myklebust
2017-12-03 15:17 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " Trond Myklebust
2017-12-03 15:17 ` trondmy
2017-12-03 15:17 ` Trond Myklebust
2017-12-03 15:17 ` Trond Myklebust
2017-12-03 21:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-03 21:22 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " Steven Rostedt
2017-12-03 21:22 ` rostedt
2017-12-03 21:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-03 21:56 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 21:56 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-03 21:56 ` elfring
2017-12-03 21:56 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 2:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 2:40 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 2:40 ` rostedt
2017-12-04 2:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 9:55 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:55 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:55 ` elfring
2017-12-04 9:55 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:00 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:00 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:00 ` elfring
2017-12-04 9:00 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 9:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 9:48 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 9:48 ` rostedt
2017-12-04 9:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-04 10:18 ` SF Markus Elfring [this message]
2017-12-04 10:18 ` [Linux-kselftest-mirror] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-12-04 10:18 ` elfring
2017-12-04 10:18 ` SF Markus Elfring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1b850dea-fdea-cc93-65fb-ba5e2082bcb9@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=trondmy@primarydata.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.