public inbox for cygwin-patches@cygwin.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jon Turney <jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk>
To: Mark Geisert <mark@maxrnd.com>,
	Cygwin Patches <cygwin-patches@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cygwin: Speed up mkimport
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:29:49 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c9e9ed07-48fc-62d1-8288-c5ef88301a88@dronecode.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201126095620.38808-1-mark@maxrnd.com>

On 26/11/2020 09:56, Mark Geisert wrote:
> Cut mkimport elapsed time in half by forking each iteration of the two
> time-consuming loops within.  Only do this if more than one CPU is
> present.  In the second loop, combine the two 'objdump' calls into one
> system() invocation to avoid a system() invocation per iteration.

Nice.  Thanks for looking into this.

> @@ -86,8 +94,18 @@ for my $f (keys %text) {
>       if (!$text{$f}) {
>   	unlink $f;
>       } else {
> -	system $objcopy, '-R', '.text', $f and exit 1;
> -	system $objcopy, '-R', '.bss', '-R', '.data', "t-$f" and exit 1;
> +	if ($forking && fork) {
> +	    # Testing shows parent does need to sleep a short time here,
> +	    # otherwise system is inundated with hundreds of objcopy processes
> +	    # and the forked perl processes that launched them.
> +	    my $delay = 0.01; # NOTE: Slower systems may need to raise this
> +	    select(undef, undef, undef, $delay); # Supports fractional seconds
> +	} else {
> +	    # Do two objcopy calls at once to avoid one system() call overhead
> +	    system '(', $objcopy, '-R', '.text', $f, ')', '||',
> +		$objcopy, '-R', '.bss', '-R', '.data', "t-$f" and exit 1;
> +	    exit 0 if $forking;
> +	}
>       }
>   }
>   

Hmm... not so sure about this.  This seems racy, as nothing ensures that 
these objcopies have finished before we combine all the produced .o 
files into a library.

I'm pretty sure with more understanding, this whole thing could be done 
better:  For example, from a brief look, it seems that the t-*.o files 
are produced by gas, and then we remove .bss and .data sections.  Could 
we not arrange to assemble these objects without those sections in the 
first place?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-12-16 14:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-26  9:56 Mark Geisert
2020-11-26 10:07 ` Mark Geisert
2020-11-26 20:30 ` Achim Gratz
2020-11-27  9:56   ` Mark Geisert
2020-11-27 18:37     ` Achim Gratz
2020-11-28  2:33       ` Brian Inglis
2020-11-28 16:57       ` Achim Gratz
2020-11-28 19:31         ` Achim Gratz
2020-12-16 14:29 ` Jon Turney [this message]
2020-11-27 10:07   ` Mark Geisert

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c9e9ed07-48fc-62d1-8288-c5ef88301a88@dronecode.org.uk \
    --to=jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk \
    --cc=cygwin-patches@cygwin.com \
    --cc=mark@maxrnd.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).