[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111108125932.GC1022@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:59:32 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
"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>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [F.A.Q.] perf ABI backwards and forwards compatibility
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 13:15 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Also the self monitor stuff, perf-tool doesn't use that for obvious
> reasons.
Indeed, and that's PAPI's strong point.
We could try to utilize it via some clever LD_PRELOAD trickery?
Adding a testcase for every bug that can be triggered via tooling
would definitely be an improvement as well - those kinds of testcases
generally tend to map out the really important bits faster than an
attempt at exhaustive testing.
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