Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:41:02 +0200 From: Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> To: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain Message-ID: <42D8809D-0E99-47A5-802F-71991B5B0B8D@cederstrand.dk> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83_sr=13H=9nnrdge0jJaOh5Bk2N_gg=Gf-uYhwM8jm7Xg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20120426093548.GR2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120426134140.GF14350@lo0.su> <CADLo838sdUT2e%2B7j8vCyOmDithLsh3kwDd_z04dWaPoiMphPDQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F99ACF9.2050609@infracaninophile.co.uk> <CADLo83_sr=13H=9nnrdge0jJaOh5Bk2N_gg=Gf-uYhwM8jm7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42D8809D-0E99-47A5-802F-71991B5B0B8D>