Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754555Ab2FMQw4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:52:56 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:16141 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753410Ab2FMQwz (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:52:55 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="179543013" Message-ID: <4FD8C51C.4060404@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:51:40 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hitoshi Mitake CC: Ingo Molnar , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Paul Mackerras , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Michel Lespinasse , Rusty Russell , Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf bench: add new benchmark subsystem and suite "futex wait" References: <1337268092-6765-1-git-send-email-h.mitake@gmail.com> <4FB52636.3040604@linux.intel.com>

<4FCE4D24.5040307@linux.intel.com> <20120606073909.GI17808@gmail.com>

In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4237 Lines: 99 On 06/07/2012 08:11 AM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> >>> * Darren Hart wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/20/2012 02:37 AM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: >>>>> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: >>>>>> 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]. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW, I often feel parse-options.[ch] of perf (this was come from git, >>>>> right?) is very useful not only for perf and git but also other >>>>> projects. So I think these stuff are worth independence as a >>>>> library. If the library contains unified feature for parsing and >>>>> evaluating configuration files, the hell of managing configurable >>>>> options will be reduced. e.g. I often use "strace -e open " >>>>> to detect configuration files read by the ... >>>>> >>>>> I thought that if perf bench can be independent from perf with such >>>>> efforts, it can be smaller sized and statically linked binary. From my >>>>> experience, this will be good for embedded systems people. >>>>> >>>>> This independence also has risk: less people can find it or is >>>>> attracted even if it stays in the kernel tree (e.g. tools/bench/). But >>>>> it seems that very few people know about perf bench, so this will not >>>>> be a serious problem ;) >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to hear your opinion. >>>> >>>> I haven't been involved with perf tools/bench so I haven't >>>> really formed an opinion. Ingo and Arnaldo, would either of >>>> you care to weigh in on the pros/cons of merging futextest >>>> into perf? >>> >>> No objections from me - 'perf bench futex' seems rather natural >>> to type to me and it would certainly make futex performance >>> testing easier and more widespread. >>> >>> So it all depends on whether you'd like to host it upstream and >>> within tools/perf/bench/. >>> > > There is another problem. futextest containts code not for benchmark, > for functional tests. My understand is: Darren doesn't like the > situation that the benchmark part is imported into perf bench and the > functional test part remains in futextest. Because this situation is > not good for maintenance. > > I think that the functional tests part is not suitable for perf bench > because of its purpose, but suitable for tools/ directly of Linux > kernel. > > If both of benchmark part and functional test part of futextest can be > imported into kernel source tree, maintenance problem will be solved. > Even if the benchmark part (in perf bench) and functional test part > are devided, they will be able to share common header files. For > example, these headers can be placed in tools/include directory. > > Thanks, If tools/testing is an appropriate place for functional and stress tests that would make this easier. I really like the idea of more testing for futexes and more eyes on the futextest code itself. Is completely integrating futextest into linux/tools/perf and linux/tools/testing the approach everyone would like to see us take here? -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel -- 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/