Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] perf: Add more syscalls to benchmark | From | Tiezhu Yang <> | Date | Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:23:27 +0800 |
| |
On 01/07/2023 05:04 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 5:23 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/03/2022 05:19 PM, Tiezhu Yang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/10/2022 11:50 AM, Tiezhu Yang wrote: >>>> Tested on x86_64, arm64, mips64 and loongarch64. >>>> >>>> Tiezhu Yang (4): >>>> tools x86: Keep list sorted by number in unistd_{32,64}.h >>>> perf bench syscall: Introduce bench_syscall_common() >>>> perf bench syscall: Add getpgid syscall benchmark >>>> perf bench syscall: Add execve syscall benchmark >>>> >>>> tools/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/unistd_32.h | 23 ++++++--- >>>> tools/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/unistd_64.h | 23 ++++++--- >>>> tools/perf/bench/bench.h | 2 + >>>> tools/perf/bench/syscall.c | 76 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >>>> tools/perf/builtin-bench.c | 2 + >>>> 5 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>> Ping, any more comments? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Tiezhu >> >> Hi all, >> >> If this patch series has no value and is not acceptable, >> or what should I do to update, please let me know. > > I'm so sorry about being late a lot. > I don't have any objection to this series. > > For the execve bench, I think it's actually fork + execve > then maybe it makes sense to have a fork only bench > to compare the execve part precisely. > > But it can be added later, so > > Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> > > Thanks, > Namhyung >
Hi Namhyung,
Thank you very much. I will submit another single patch to benchmark fork after this series is applied.
Thanks, Tiezhu
|  |