Message-ID: <1412806493.2908.7.camel@u64>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Perf Bench: Locking Microbenchmark
From: Tuan Bui <tuan.d.bui@hp.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, paulus@samba.org,
        artagnon@gmail.com, jolsa@redhat.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com,
        Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:14:53 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1412312253.27162.5.camel@linux-t7sj.site>
References: <1412120999.2941.11.camel@u64>
	 <20141001052832.GA32248@gmail.com> <20141001171226.GF2799@kernel.org>
	 <1412312253.27162.5.camel@linux-t7sj.site>
Organization: HP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 21:57 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 14:12 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:28:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > > If you compare an strace of AIM7 steady state and 'perf bench 
> > > lock' steady state, is it comparable, i.e. do the syscalls and 
> > 
> > Isn't "lock" too generic? Isn't this stressing some specific lock and if
> > so shouldn't that be made abundantly clear in the 'perf bench' test name
> > and in the docs?
> 
> yeah, and 'perf bench locking creat' just doesn't sound right.
> 

Do you have any suggestion on how i should name it?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/