linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf bench: add new benchmark subsystem and suite "futex wait"

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]

Message-ID: <4FCE4D24.5040307@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:17:08 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf bench: add new benchmark subsystem and suite "futex
 wait"



On 05/20/2012 02:37 AM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/17/2012 08:21 AM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>>>> Hi Ingo, Eric and Darren,
>>>> (CCed perf and futex folks)
>>>>
>>>> I wrote this patch for adding new subsystem "futex" and its suite "wait" to perf
>>>> bench on tip/master. This is based on futextest by Darren Hart.
>>>>
>>>> Could you allow me to import your source code of futextest to perf bench, Darren?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do have some concerns I'd like to address first.
>>>
>>> What is advantage of incorporating this into perf as opposed to running
>>> it with perf?
>>
>> The main and direct advantage is that perf bench can share useful
>> utilities stored under tools/perf/util/ directory e.g. parse-options[ch].
>>
> 
> BTW, I often feel parse-options.[ch] of perf (this was come from git,
> right?) is very useful not only for perf and git but also other
> projects. So I think these stuff are worth independence as a
> library. If the library contains unified feature for parsing and
> evaluating configuration files, the hell of managing configurable
> options will be reduced. e.g. I often use "strace -e open <command>"
> to detect configuration files read by the <command>...
> 
> I thought that if perf bench can be independent from perf with such
> efforts, it can be smaller sized and statically linked binary. From my
> experience, this will be good for embedded systems people.
> 
> This independence also has risk: less people can find it or is
> attracted even if it stays in the kernel tree (e.g. tools/bench/). But
> it seems that very few people know about perf bench, so this will not
> be a serious problem ;)
> 
> I'd like to hear your opinion.

I haven't been involved with perf tools/bench so I haven't really formed
an opinion. Ingo and Arnaldo, would either of you care to weigh in on
the pros/cons of merging futextest into perf?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
--
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/