[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091103.195335.229420428319821713.mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:53:35 +0900 (JST)
From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
To: mingo@...e.hu
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
tglx@...utronix.de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, efault@....de,
acme@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] Adding general performance benchmarking
subsystem to perf.
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] Adding general performance benchmarking subsystem to perf.
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:46:48 +0100
>
> * Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> >
> > Adding general performance benchmarking subsystem to perf.
> > This patch adds builtin-bench-pipe.c
> >
> > builtin-bench-pipe.c is a benchmark program
> > to measure performance of pipe() system call.
> > This benchmark is based on pipe-test-1m.c by Ingo Molnar.
> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/tools/pipe-test-1m.c
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
> > Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
> > ---
> > tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c b/tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..081515e
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
> > +/*
> > + *
> > + * builtin-bench-pipe.c
> > + *
> > + * pipe: Benchmark for pipe()
> > + *
> > + * Based on pipe-test-1m.c by Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > + * http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/tools/pipe-test-1m.c
> > + * Ported to perf by Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
> > + *
> > + */
>
Thanks for your detailed comments, Ingo!
I read your comments and rewrote the patch series.
I'll sent the series later as new thread.
> Ok, i think there's going to be quite a few of these benchmarks, so i'd
> suggest you start a new directory for the benchmark modules:
> tools/perf/bench/ for example.
>
> We'll still have tools/perf/builtin-bench.c which represents the highest
> level 'perf bench' tool - and new modules can be added by adding them to
> bench/.
>
> What do you think?
I agree with your way making new bench/ directory.
I feel that modules of bench should not be at top of tools/perf/.
>
> All in one, i very much like the modular direction you are taking here.
>
Thanks, I'm grad to hear it.
> There will be a handful of more details i'm sure but once there's a good
> base we can commit it - would you / will you be interested in extending
> it further and adding more benchmark modules as well?
>
> There's quite a few useful small benchmarks that people are using to
> measure the kernel. Having a good collection of them in one place, with
> standardized options and standardized output would be very useful.
Yes, of course! Unified benchmarking utilities will be big help for
Linux users including me.
e.g. I think that copybench (http://code.google.com/p/copybench/) will be
good benchmark for I/O, memory and file system.
I'll work on this after that the patch series I'll send later is merged.
Do you know any other good candidates to include?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists