Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752796Ab2ETIcR (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2012 04:32:17 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:52419 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752157Ab2ETIcB (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2012 04:32:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4FB52636.3040604@linux.intel.com> References: <1337268092-6765-1-git-send-email-h.mitake@gmail.com> <4FB52636.3040604@linux.intel.com> Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 17:32:00 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf bench: add new benchmark subsystem and suite "futex wait" From: Hitoshi Mitake To: Darren Hart Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Paul Mackerras , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Michel Lespinasse , Rusty Russell , Eric Dumazet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2857 Lines: 70 On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > On 05/17/2012 08:21 AM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: >> Hi Ingo, Eric and Darren, >> (CCed perf and futex folks) >> >> I wrote this patch for adding new subsystem "futex" and its suite "wait" to perf >> bench on tip/master. This is based on futextest by Darren Hart. >> >> Could you allow me to import your source code of futextest to perf bench, Darren? >> > > I do have some concerns I'd like to address first. > > What is advantage of incorporating this into perf as opposed to running > it with perf? The main and direct advantage is that perf bench can share useful utilities stored under tools/perf/util/ directory e.g. parse-options[ch]. > > Do you intend to port the rest of the futextest testsuite over to perf? > > futextest is not by any means complete, and I have been slowly adding to > it over time. My concern would be getting into a situation where perf > bench has a small subset of similar (but slightly different) tests, > which can not be maintained along with futextest. > > Would there be a strong motivation to bring all of futextest under perf? > There are certain parts that I can see as not being a good fit, such as > some of the functional tests or possibly some of the stress tests (and > some of the planned randomization stress tests). I was intending to port only futex_wait.c to perf currently. But importing other parts of futextest may be worthful. Even if they are not suitable for perf bench, I think storing them into tools/ directory of linux kernel is valuable because they are good documentation and example of futex usage. > >> Below is the patch, I'd like to hear your comments. > > Depending on the answers to the above, I'm concerned about the inlining > of the various bits and pieces from the futextest header files into a > single C file - from a maintenance and expansion perspective. > > I am not necessarily opposed to the idea, especially as being under the > perf umbrella is sure to get more futex testing and eyes on the > futextest code. I would like to make sure we have a long term plan > before merging headers and C files together from futextest into perf. > As you say, if we import other part of futextest into perf or tools/, embedding some functions like futex_inc, dec, etc are not so good. How do you think about the idea of storing other part of futextest into tools/ directory? If you agree this, I'll move some functions related to futex and atomic operations to tools/include/ directory or somewhere more suitable. Thanks, -- Hitoshi Mitake h.mitake@gmail.com -- 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/