[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CDD56E3.5030303@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:01:55 +0900
From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, h.mitake@...il.com,
Ma Ling <ling.ma@...el.com>, Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf bench: add x86-64 specific benchmarks to perf
bench mem memcpy
On 2010年11月10日 18:12, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Hitoshi Mitake<mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>>> An even better solution would be to output _both_ results by default, so that
>>> people can see both characteristics at a glance?
>>
>> Outputting both result of prefaulted and non prefaulted will be useful, but this
>> might be not good for using from scripts. So I'll implement --prefault option
>> first. If there is request for outputting both, I'll consider to modify default
>> output.
>
> Ok - it should definitely be easily scriptable. The default can be have both flags
> enabled and both results written to the output.
>
> People will try 'perf bench x86' to see performance at a glance - so printing all
> the tests we have is a good idea.
OK, I added --no-prefault and --only-prefault to perf bench mem memcpy.
As you told, printing both of them is convenient.
I send the updated patch later.
Thanks,
--
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