Re: powerpc allyesconfig / allmodconfig linux-next next-20160729 - next-20160729 build failures

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 21:16:00 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 2:16:42 AM CEST Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > index 0ec807d69f18..7a3ad269fa23 100644
> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@
> > >   * during second ld run in second ld pass when generating System.map */
> > >  #define TEXT_TEXT                                                    \
> > >               ALIGN_FUNCTION();                                       \
> > > -             *(.text.hot .text .text.fixup .text.unlikely)           \
> > > +             *(.text.hot .text .text.* .text.fixup .text.unlikely)   \
> > >               *(.ref.text)                                            \
> > >       MEM_KEEP(init.text)                                             \
> > >       MEM_KEEP(exit.text)                                             \
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It also got much faster again, the link time for an allyesconfig
> > > kernel is now 18 minutes instead of 10 hours, but it's still
> > > much worse than the 2 minutes I had earlier or the four minutes
> > > with the previous patch.  
> > 
> > Are you using the patches I just sent?  
> 
> Not yet, I was still busy with the older version, and trying to
> figure out exactly what went wrong in ld.bfd. FWIW, I first tried
> to see if the hash tables were just too small, but as it turned
> out that was not the problem. When I tried to change the default
> hash table sizes, making them bigger only made things slower.
> 
> I also found the --hash-size=xxx option, which has a significant
> impact on runtime speed. Interestingly again, using sizes less
> than the default made things faster in practice. If we can
> work out the optimum size for the kernel build, that might
> shave a few minutes off the total build time.
> 
> > Either way, you also need
> > to do the same for data and bss sections as you are using
> > -fdata-sections too.  
> 
> Right.
> 
> > I've found virtually no build time regression on powerpc or x86
> > when those are taken care of properly (x86 numbers I sent are typo,
> > it's not 5m20, it's 5m02).  
> 
> Interesting. I wonder if it's got something to do with the
> generation of the branch trampolines on ARM, as we have a lot
> of them on an allyesconfig.

Powerpc generates quite a few branch trampolines as well, so
I'm not sure if that would be the issue. Can you get a profile
of the link?

Are you linking with archives? Do your input archives have a
symbol index built?


> Is the 5m20 the total build time for the kernel, the time for
> rebuilding after a trivial change, or the time to call 'ld.bfd'
> once?

5m02 was the total time for x86 defconfig. With the powerpc
allyesconfig build, the final link:

$ time ld -EL -m elf64lppc -pie --emit-relocs --build-id --gc-sections -X -o vmlinux -T ./arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds --whole-archive built-in.o .tmp_kallsyms2.o

real	0m15.556s
user	0m13.288s
sys	0m2.240s

$ ls -lh vmlinux
-rwxrwxr-x 1 npiggin npiggin 279M Aug  6 14:02 vmlinux

Without -pie --emit-relocs it's 11.8s and 150M but I'm using
emit-relocs for a post-link step.


> Are you using ld.bfd on x86 or ld.gold? For me ld.gold either
> works and is really fast, or it crashes, depending on the
> configuration. I also don't think it supports big-endian ARM
> (which is what allyesconfig ends up using).

ld.bfd on both. Gold crashed on powerpc and I didn't try it on x86.

Thanks,
Nick