From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7358 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Szabolcs Nagy Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl perf, 20% slower than native build? Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 18:05:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20150408160507.GB31681@port70.net> References: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1428509123 23890 80.91.229.3 (8 Apr 2015 16:05:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:05:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: John Mudd To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-7371-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Apr 08 18:05:23 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YfsTj-0007gC-1T for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:05:23 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 30018 invoked by uid 550); 8 Apr 2015 16:05:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 30000 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2015 16:05:21 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: musl@lists.openwall.com, John Mudd Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:7358 Archived-At: 20% is tiny measurement noise compared to the huge variance in the environments you are comparing try to figure out the libc api calls that are slower in musl and why (perf can collect stats about hot paths) (eg. if python uses regex that would explain the difference because musl uses a slow but correct regex algorithm unlike glibc..)