Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kallsyms: Fix sleeping function called from invalid
 context when CONFIG_KALLSYMS_SELFTEST=y
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-modules@vger.kernel.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
References: <20221228014511.328-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
 <Y7wZSxw+Ys5MNf8g@alley> <Y7ythXxlzsJkFQcd@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <Y702gW+5P5EepCkG@alley>
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <5fdf54c7-7b21-66ca-944e-aa8dde4e3427@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 20:20:16 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Y702gW+5P5EepCkG@alley>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/1/10 17:57, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2023-01-09 16:12:53, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 02:40:27PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
>>> Why are try hardly comparable?
>>>
>>> 1. The speed depends on the number of loaded modules
>>>    and number of symbols. It highly depends on the configuration
>>>    that was used to build the kernel.
>>>
>>> 2. The test runs only once. As a result it is hard to judge
>>>    how big is the noise.
>>>
>>> 3. The noise might depend on the size and state of CPU caches.
>>>
>>>
>>> I personally vote for removing this selftest!
>>
>> Even so, just as with testing a filesystem with different types of
>> configurations, at least testing a few configs helps and it's what
>> we do. Then, if anyone ever wanted to try to increase performance
>> on symbol lookup today they have no easy way to measure things. How
>> would they go about comparing things performance without this selftest?
> 
> How many people cares about kallsyms performance, please?
> Is it worth spending time one implementing and maintaining such a
> selftest?
> 
> Yes, Zhen wanted to make it faster. But how likely will anyone else
> try to make it even better? Do we need to spend time on this
> in the meantime?
> 
> 
>> This selftests helps generically with that *and* helps peg on to it any sanity
>> checks you may wish to add to those APIs which we just don't want to do
>> upstream.
> 
>>From my POV, it would be much more important to check if the API
> works as expected. I mean that it gives the right results.
> 
> I am not sure that performance is that important to spend more time
> on this one.
> 
> Also I am not sure if selftests are the right location for performance
> tests. My understanding is that it is a framework for functional
> testing. It is showing if the tests passed or not. But performance
> tests do not give "pass or not" results.

I think both of you have a point. In the absence of a better way to
improve it, perhaps deleting the performance test is the best option now.
OK, I'll do this first.

> 
> Best Regards,
> Petr
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei