linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] perf-bench: introduce futex microbenchmarks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:12:42 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	acme@...stprotocols.net, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, jason.low2@...com, Waiman.Long@...com,
	scott.norton@...com, aswin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] perf-bench: introduce futex microbenchmarks

On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 10:13 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 06:44 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 11:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > This patchset adds three programs that stress and measure different 
> > > > futex operations: (i) uaddr hashing, (ii) wakeups and (iii) 
> > > > requeuing/waiting.
> > > > 
> > > > More details and usage examples in each individual patch, along with 
> > > > parameter descriptions in the code.
> > > > 
> > > > While the previous effort (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/207) to 
> > > > add futex benchmarks to perf-bench failed, I strongly believe that 
> > > > perf is an ideal place for these kinds of programs. This patchset is 
> > > > different from Hitoshi's because it does not try to take over 
> > > > Darren's futextest suite, and only deals with finer grained aspects 
> > > > of the kernel's implementation, and thus mostly useful for kernel 
> > > > hacking. Furthermore, by being part of the kernel tree, it can get 
> > > > more attention and naturally evolve with time.
> > > 
> > > Looks pretty useful!
> > > 
> > > Could the two approaches be merged?
> > 
> > Unless Darren doesn't want to, I don't see why not. I can resurrect
> > Hitoshi's original patch if/after this series is applied.
> 
> Apologies, I only am just now seeing this.
> 
> I agree that we should take whatever makes sense for perf out of
> futex-test and merge it with perf. It will see greater use and receive
> more review and improvements than it will in my obscure repository.
> 
> With trinity covering the fuzz testing and perf handling performance
> tests, I think futex-test can be reduced down to a functional
> test-suite, which is perfectly fine with me.
> 
> If there is still interest here, I'll support it.

Arnaldo, could you consider this for 3.15? I've also got some additional
work for perf-bench but am waiting for this to get settled first.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/