This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, VandeVondele Joost <joost dot vandevondele at mat dot ethz dot ch>, David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:20:37 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc parallel make check
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1410381512 dot 28338 dot 9 dot camel at surprise> <20140910210822 dot GK17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140910212334 dot GL17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140911075123 dot GN17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140911080640 dot GP17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20140911145300 dot GR17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <908103EDB4893A42920B21D3568BFD93150F876D at MBX23 dot d dot ethz dot ch> <908103EDB4893A42920B21D3568BFD93150FE8D2 at MBX13 dot d dot ethz dot ch> <20140912163241 dot GC17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <305370A6-ACBC-4DD4-AF96-32B3503F3388 at comcast dot net> <20140915160549 dot GM17454 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <64B425D3-EDE8-4F28-B815-F9D374730F7F at comcast dot net>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> All the updates sound good.
>
>> Regtested on x86_64-linux, without the patch toplevel make -k check
>> took 8hrs3minutes (don't have time data for that run),
>
> This confuses me, but, no matter. Isnât 8hrs time data? :-)
>
>> patch toplevel make -j48 -k check took:
>> real 40m21.984s
>> user 341m51.675s
>> sys 112m46.993s
>> and with the patch make -j48 -k check took:
>> real 32m22.066s
>> user 355m1.788s
>> sys 117m5.809s
>
> These numbers are useful to try and ensure the overhead (scaling factor) is reasonable, thanks.
A nice improvement indeed. The patched result is 15 times faster
than the serial unpatched run. So there is room for improvement
(I wouldn't say the scaling factor is reasonable - with accounting for
overhead I'd expect it should be possible to arrive at a factor of 32
here at least).
So - where's the "serial" parts of the testing run?
Thanks for the improvements btw!
Richard.
>> Is this version ok for trunk?
>
> Ok.
>
> Thanks for all your work.