From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <archer-return-2000-listarch-archer=sourceware.org@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14411 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2010 21:08:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Sender: <archer@sourceware.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:archer@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:archer-help@sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:archer-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Id: <archer.sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14073 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2010 21:08:17 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:08:00 -0000
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: Project Archer <archer@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: gdb index performance
Message-ID: <20100623210802.GA17835@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
References: <m3aaqlbkmx.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m3aaqlbkmx.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10)
X-SW-Source: 2010-q2/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:43:02 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I also did the same tests, but including "thread apply all bt full".

Wasn't there a problem with incomplete backtraces (due to prelink) such as
shown at the top of:
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-06/msg00515.html
	

> The warm cache "bt" results are particularly good (actually I thought
> something went wrong so I did this again by hand -- it really is that
> fast)

Just to be sure - assuming the machine had enough RAM.  # of CPUs?


"cold" on SSD storage could hopefully be more like "warm".
(i do not have SSD here.)


Thanks,
Jan