Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964823AbbGVNvU (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:51:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47282 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753882AbbGVNvT (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:51:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:50:58 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , Vince Weaver , Matt Fleming , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf tests: Add Intel CQM and arch tests Message-ID: <20150722135058.GB2326@redhat.com> References: <1437561539-27939-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20150722132444.GC28330@krava.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150722132444.GC28330@krava.brq.redhat.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1650 Lines: 41 Em Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:24:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:38:59AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > This patch is marked as RFC because I'd really like to solicit opinions > > on this approach and hear feedback on whether this is the correct way to > > structure these arch tests. I realise that we've already got tests for > > the TSC, etc that are x86-specific but I didn't want to change the order > > of the tests (say, by moving test__perf_time_to_tsc() into ARCH_TESTS) > > in case that broke some kind of ABI. > I wouldn't consider the order of tests being ABI, > let's break it and watch ;-) yeah > SNIP > > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h b/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h > > +#define ARCH_TESTS \ > > + { \ > > + .desc = "Test intel cqm nmi context read", \ > > + .func = test__intel_cqm_count_nmi_context, \ > > + }, > > + > > hum, I dont like much this being stuffed in macro, > but dont have any technical reason against ;-) > > maybe we could add 'struct test arch_tests[]' array, that'd be > initialized by each arch and executed in addition to the current > 'struct test tests[]' Agreed, that would be cleaner, and we need something like that anyway, i.e. some way to group tests that run only if certain requirements are met, i.e. tests that require root permission, arch specific ones, etc. - Arnaldo -- 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/