Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 08:53:11 -0700 From: bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net> To: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> Cc: Trev <freebsd-arm@sentry.org>, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net> Subject: Re: RPI3 swap experiments Message-ID: <20180723155311.GB45726@www.zefox.net> In-Reply-To: <AB5EE2E4-B2FD-4CA9-A993-04C2A4BE10AE@yahoo.com> References: <20180629233937.GC35717@www.zefox.net> <0f137e06-214a-3e8c-a216-f061ec04ac2c@sentry.org> <20180630005145.GA43801@www.zefox.net> <6f3406e2-71f3-d0c2-2b65-703e1a1d3c25@sentry.org> <8e92b2b7-da61-3efb-7231-9fac76b2c1d4@sentry.org> <ba33d8a7-a849-3893-8016-0765ebe1c51f@sentry.org> <2deaaec3-f78f-0b09-5ca7-27e14c6979f9@sentry.org> <bc8da02c-4465-9634-6fd0-0af4c63aa49d@sentry.org> <20180723063526.GA45726@www.zefox.net> <AB5EE2E4-B2FD-4CA9-A993-04C2A4BE10AE@yahoo.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:11:19AM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > > > On 2018-Jul-22, at 11:35 PM, bob prohaska <fbsd at www.zefox.net> wrote: > > >> . . . > > There is some reason to think "newer" Sandisk Extreme devices differ, perhaps > > in a bad way, from older devices. The older device in my tests is model > > SDCZ80-064G and is simply labeled USB3.0. The newer, troublesome device > > is model SDCZ800-064G and is labeled Extreme Go USB 3.1. There are reports > > that the Extreme Go is slower, advising to buy the older devices if possible. > > > > The USB3.1 flash drive is back in test, with the results of a j4 buildworld > > under r336567 at > > http://www.zefox.net/~fbsd/rpi3/swaptests/r336567/ > > > > The worst case results are still fairly dismal, close to a minute. All the > > swap was on microSD, so OOMA didn't strike and buildworld completed successfully. > > Near as I can tell no errors were reported on the console. > > > Rebuilds that do not rebuild the llvm materials (clang, lld, lldb, etc.) are not all that > comparable to ones that do. (This is visible in the time differences in the builds that > complete.) The llvm related build activity likely involves most of the potential > swapping, for example. Also: lots of I/O. > > There can be two rebuilds of some of the llvm material. One stage with such is the > cross-compiler: > --- buildworld --- > make[1]: "/usr/src/Makefile.inc1" line 341: SYSTEM_COMPILER: Determined that CC=cc matches the source tree. Not bootstrapping a cross-compiler. > make[1]: "/usr/src/Makefile.inc1" line 346: SYSTEM_LINKER: Determined that LD=ld matches the source tree. Not bootstrapping a cross-linker. > (it was not rebuilt in the example). The other involves the build of the system llvm materials for > use in the (potentially) installed system, such as the system's clang. > > Taking an environment that worked for lack of llvm related rebuilds may not > well indicate the result for rebuilds that would try to rebuild the llvm related > materials. > > It is something to consider in what builds are compared, how they are > compared, and what one infers from comparisons. > The first step in the experiment is to run a cleanup script, consisting of make -j8 cleandir > cleandir.log && make -j8 cleandir > cleandir.log && rm -rf /usr/obj/usr/src && rm *.log Might this be insufficient to ensure a clean start? There's no obvious reason to build a cross compiler, since this is an RPI3 building world for itself. Is there an error in the cleanup script? Thanks for reading! bob prohaskahome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180723155311.GB45726>