Marcus Pollice On 22.12.2014 03:20, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: > > I don't think there would be very many patches that are meant to improve > performance in our patch set (note, I did not check). That was a good assumption. Although some patches looked suspicious I ultimately found that these patches don't materially affect performance. More about that below.
> You may also which to check what are all > the compiler options coming from dpkg-buildflags used in the build... That was a good idea indeed, but there was nothing out of the order coming from there. Also since openssl writes the compile options to the console when running the benchmarks I could test most of these before to have no real effect. > I would suggest using the source package as a base > and using debuild / chroots / PPAs to build your custom package, that > way you'd benefit from the same performance unless your custom changes > impact them in some way, with the least amount of effort. > Ultimately I used the Debian way of building to reproduce the same performance level as the built-in packages. Then I started playing with doing certain steps of the compilation manually vs automated building. When I got a build with the patches applied and the same low performance I was getting before I knew it was not the patches. I then dissected the buildlog and at some point I noticed the major difference is that the built-in version will be compiled with shared libraries. This is indeed the root cause for the performance difference I found. The versions using shared libraries are indeed faster than a static build (at least for the small data sizes). This is completely unexpected to me. It is also somewhat unsatisfying as I now know the cause but don't quite understand it. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
