[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111108121501.GA1022@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:15:01 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@...il.com>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [F.A.Q.] perf ABI backwards and forwards compatibility
* Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> [...] There's an easy fix for this too: improve "perf test" to
> cover the cases you're intested in. While ABI spec would be a nice
> addition, it's not going to make compatibility problems magically
> go away.
Yes, exactly - 'perf test' has been written with that exact purpose.
In practice 'perf' will cover almost all parts of the ABI.
The one notable thing that isnt being tested in a natural way is the
'group of events' abstraction - which, ironically, has been added on
the perfmon guys' insistence. No app beyond the PAPI self-test makes
actual use of it though, which results in an obvious lack of testing.
Vince: the code is in tools/perf/builtin-test.c and our offer still
stands, feel free to extend it. Maybe there's some other volunteer
willing to do that?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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