Sub bug for 5477. We need to test how build performance is affected with and without gcc security flags (see bug https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3868 for details). We will test the following images: core-image-minimal, core-image-sato, core-image-sato-sdk. The build times will be presented and compared to see the build time affected. The test should be done with downloads already ready, hence the download time won't be affected. Other comments are welcomed.
We should use buildhistory to track the performance too.
we need to check build size as well
Created attachment 1612 [details] GCC security flags - build time tests
Hi, As we can see from the attached doc the differences within the build times are as follows: *core-image-minimal: around 20 seconds more for the image with the security flags enabled *core-image-sato: around 1 minute more for the image with the security flags enabled *core-image-sato-sdk: around 2 minutes more for the image with the security flags enabled Also, you can see that the occupied disk space differences between the two core-image-sato-sdk images are around 1 GB more for the images having security flags enable. Having the above values, in my opinion, we can consider them to be negligible as these differences can appear on any normal build time. Speaking only from the build time perspective, the security flags have a minimum impact on this process.
closing wince [qa] tracking bugs won't be used starting 1.7
reopened since this is not a tracking bug.
Moved to M4 as we want to use Lava server as a data collection tool for the performance testing. As agreed with RP and Paul E., we will first start with Lava installation then we should start collection boot time for the images. Cheers, Ionut C
Added an estimate but this needs to be re-discussed.
Not sure why this was blocking the runtime performance umbrella bug since it is build time testing, either way, the whole structure for those bugs is being changed. These bugs were 3-4 years old and might not be reflecting the current needs of this framework. This is being reevaluated and if it is still needed a new bug will be opened attached to the new umbrella bug #10951. It will also be reviewed if it needs to be this specific or if a broader definition for the bug is better.