Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 May 2012 17:32:00 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf bench: add new benchmark subsystem and suite "futex wait" | From | Hitoshi Mitake <> |
| |
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> 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
| |