From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr 30 13:51:09 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1DD106566B;
	Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:51:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from erik@cederstrand.dk)
Received: from csmtp3.one.com (csmtp3.one.com [91.198.169.23])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADF58FC14;
	Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:51:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (unknown [217.157.7.221])
	by csmtp3.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 30E402410372;
	Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:41:02 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk>
In-Reply-To: <CADLo83_sr=13H=9nnrdge0jJaOh5Bk2N_gg=Gf-uYhwM8jm7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:41:02 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <42D8809D-0E99-47A5-802F-71991B5B0B8D@cederstrand.dk>
References: <20120426093548.GR2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
	<20120426134140.GF14350@lo0.su>
	<CADLo838sdUT2e+7j8vCyOmDithLsh3kwDd_z04dWaPoiMphPDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F99ACF9.2050609@infracaninophile.co.uk>
	<CADLo83_sr=13H=9nnrdge0jJaOh5Bk2N_gg=Gf-uYhwM8jm7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>,
	freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:51:09 -0000

Den 26/04/2012 kl. 22.30 skrev Chris Rees:

> On 26 April 2012 20:15, Matthew Seaman =
<m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 26/04/2012 20:01, Chris Rees wrote:
>>> hydra# cd /usr/ports && time make MAKE=3D~crees/bin/make-static =
index
>>>=20
>>> Generating INDEX-9 - please wait.. Done.
>>> 729.770u 120.841s 7:45.10 182.8%        920+2676k 5251+116484io =
7750pf+0w
>>>=20
>>> hydra# time make MAKE=3D~crees/bin/make-dynamic index
>>>=20
>>> Generating INDEX-9 - please wait.. Done.
>>> 771.320u 133.540s 8:07.83 185.4%        609+2918k 474+116484io =
570pf+0w
>>>=20
>>> We have a 10% slowdown (or 11% speedup, depending on your figures) =
when
>>> using a dynamically loaded make.
>>=20
>> I don't think you can validly conclude much from just one sample of =
each
>> type.  Try repeating those tests enough that you can do some decent
>> statistics.
>>=20
>> Oh, and you should probably either discard the first few results, or
>> else take pains to flush[*] the buffer cache between each run, so you
>> end up measuring the same thing repeatably.
>=20
> Had I done the tests the other way around, I may agree with you, but
> the second test should benefit from any buffering, and it is *still*
> slower.
>=20
> Look, I know it's not a perfect benchmark, it was just some food for
> thought-- a difference of 10% is pretty significant, and I don't think
> you can blame that on a solar flare.

Can anyone explain to me why the dynamically linked version is =
significantly slower? What are the extra steps involved compared to a =
statically linked binary?

Thanks,
Erik=