sDTWv9GKptiw1X4X4v0m5cdb4UazQmkKg.gT9ZxAjc0D1FX_HWecsJ4u6ciBXjvncDgIuFOZ4T uP5AtluEpmvgW1ZESSMeycze68G0bDMhy30cGw.cyzuzuRlU9Mb6Pvj8uAl8ebJbjDiLR5QskK2c S62jBVyWaj96im2i4QUnEwPQrIORm7eDchBl5cA_n93ZAq3fsL5zCFAmdfGWCp2lHSugMs.CHRI3 8d7cnPOmwOIt6SA-- X-Sonic-MF: X-Sonic-ID: 50cad393-06ee-4ea0-a6b3-171beeadd9f3 Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic313.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 11:44:54 +0000 Received: by hermes--production-gq1-54bf57fc64-tvxhk (Yahoo Inc. Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID d6dbaf95c7fce164963674c2c03393bc; Tue, 09 Dec 2025 11:44:49 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-stable List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.700.81\)) Subject: Re: performance regressions in 15.0 [What should be the case for 15.0-RELEASE: WITH_ASSEERT_DEBUG or WITHOUT_ASSERT_DEBUG ?] From: Mark Millard In-Reply-To: <6A8AD343-01E3-42B0-9086-F3C598C33DBC@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 03:44:38 -0800 Cc: FreeBSD Current Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <18FB2858-5CBB-4B7A-8089-224A58C6A160@yahoo.com> <19A848A6-0042-4873-B70D-AD6805225B92@yahoo.com> <902C948B-0A4C-48E1-8C6C-1BC7A15209D7@yahoo.com> <33F5F7DE-8DFA-47E2-A890-E07564825D05@yahoo.com> <6A8AD343-01E3-42B0-9086-F3C598C33DBC@yahoo.com> To: Warner Losh , Konstantin Belousov , Mateusz Guzik , FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.700.81) X-Spamd-Bar: --- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.53 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.53)[-0.535]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[yahoo.com,reject]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[yahoo.com:s=s2048]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ptr:yahoo.com]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[bsdimp.com,freebsd.org,gmail.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[yahoo.com:dkim]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[yahoo.com:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36647, ipnet:98.137.64.0/20, country:US]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[98.137.65.82:from]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-stable@freebsd.org]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[98.137.65.82:from]; APPLE_MAILER_COMMON(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_HAS_QUESTION(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4dQcTk6GKcz3Hw6 On Dec 8, 2025, at 11:02, Mark Millard wrote: > https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/blame/share/mk/bsd.opts.mk?h=3Dreleng/15.0 = shows: >=20 > __DEFAULT_YES_OPTIONS =3D \ > ASSERT_DEBUG \ > . . . >=20 > Looks like it has been that way going back > into 2014. It suggests that care needs to > have been taken to not have added any > expensive asserts, likely including in > contributed software, such as jemalloc > updates and others? >=20 > This is a difference with what I tested, by > the way: >=20 > WITH_MALLOC_PRODUCTION=3D > WITHOUT_ASSERT_DEBUG=3D > WITHOUT_PTHREADS_ASSERTIONS=3D > WITHOUT_LLVM_ASSERTIONS=3D >=20 > I have not tested how much of a difference > it makes. >=20 > For reference: >=20 > WITHOUT_ASSERT_DEBUG > Compile programs and libraries without the assert(3) = checks. >=20 Just to get an idea, I rebuilt my jemalloc 5.3.0 using WITH_ASSERT_DEBUG and installed that into the jemalloc 5.3.0 chroot. I then did a rm -fr in that chroot of the prior test build. I then had the chroot rebuild from the same source tree it had built with before, using the same src.conf as before, trying not to vary the build result. So this would be a comparison with the 9384 second figure for forming the time ratio (WITHOUT_ASSERT_DEBUG). It got: World build completed on Tue Dec 9 08:44:39 UTC 2025 World built in 10350 seconds, ncpu: 8, make -j8 So: 10350/9384 is a little over 1.10 jemalloc 5.2.1 / jemalloc 5.3.0, both WITHOUT_ASSERT_DEBUG, from previous activity: 9754/9384 is a little under 1.04 Using the 15.0 and 14.3 qt6-webengine-6.9.3 quarterly times from ampere3 and ampere1: 53:33:46/38:25:51 approx.=3D 53.56/38.43 approx.=3D 1.39 And the llvm21 21.1.2 quarterly times I'd recently also reported for ampere3 (15.0) and ampere1 (14.3): 21:26:14/15:24:24 approx.=3D 21.44/15.41 approx.=3D 1.39 So, while use of WITH_ASSERT_DEBUG might be contributing some, it looks unlikely to be the bulk of the difference in the time ratios for 15.0 ampere3 vs. 14.3 ampere1 quarterly. I conclude that this example type of experiment would likely have a limited contribution to identifying what is going on for the 15.0 jail worlds vs. the 14.3 jail worlds (quarterlies) (or the 15.0 quarterly vs. 13.5 default/latest builds) on ampere3 and ampere1. =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com