Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:02:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:02:07 -0500 Received: from www.wen-online.de ([212.223.88.39]:38674 "EHLO wen-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:01:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:18:25 +0100 (CET) From: Mike Galbraith To: Daniel Egger cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] 7.52 second kernel compile In-Reply-To: <1016305054.19498.13.camel@sonja> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16 Mar 2002, Daniel Egger wrote: > Am Sam, 2002-03-16 um 18.37 schrieb Martin J. Bligh: > > > BTW - the other tip that was in the big book of whizzy kernel > > compiles was to set gcc to use -pipe ... you might want to try > > that. > > Interestingly -pipe doesn't give any measurable performance increases or > even leads to a minor decrease in compile speed in my latest tests on > bigger projects like the linux kernel or GIMP. I suspect that's because > of the caching nature of nowadays systems: the temporary products are > cached in memory and likely not to never end on a drive because they're > read and removed before the point the filesystem decides to physically > write the data. > > I also benchmarked tmpfs mounts and it demonstrated - to my surprise - > small advantages slightly above the noise range; I suspect this is due > to the way it handles files in memory. Yes. Last time I tested, -pipe was _always_ a loser, and writing to swap was measurably faster than writing to fs. -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/