80s *may* not be unreasonable since there is a lot of stuff going on with DWARF-unwinding. Unless there is a reason to believe something is going wrong (a quick profile should tell that easily), I wouldn't object to increasing the timeout.
--david On 3/20/07, Nurdin Premji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
About 80 seconds on an x86_64 David Mosberger-Tang wrote: > Performance depends on a lot of factors (platform, machine, etc). By > default, remote-unwinding doesn't enable the cache, so it's certainly > relatively slow. I don't think I ever ran into troubles with the 30 > sec limit on ia64, but there isn't anything magic about that value > either. How big did you have to make the timeout to make it pass? > What platform? x86-64? > > --david > > On 3/20/07, Nurdin Premji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What is the performance of this test, I've found that with the >> libunwind-20070224 snapshot I had to modify the alarm timeout to make it >> pass. Is there a problem with the caching of the maps? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libunwind-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libunwind-devel >> > >
-- Mosberger Consulting LLC, http://www.mosberger-consulting.com/ _______________________________________________ Libunwind-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libunwind-devel
