Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752695Ab2FXQIc (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:32 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:42954 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751490Ab2FXQIb (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4FD8C51C.4060404@linux.intel.com> 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>

<4FD8C51C.4060404@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:08:30 +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 , 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: 4634 Lines: 103 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > > > 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? At least I think so. The part of futextest will be a good document and integrating it into the kernel tree might be a good culture. If the integration is allowed, I'd like to update the patch. # But this will take a long time because my day job is busy phase, very sorry... -- 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/