[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1387205098.2797.3.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 06:44:58 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...stprotocols.net,
mingo@...hat.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, jason.low2@...com, Waiman.Long@...com,
scott.norton@...com, aswin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] perf-bench: introduce futex microbenchmarks
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 11:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
>
> > This patchset adds three programs that stress and measure different
> > futex operations: (i) uaddr hashing, (ii) wakeups and (iii)
> > requeuing/waiting.
> >
> > More details and usage examples in each individual patch, along with
> > parameter descriptions in the code.
> >
> > While the previous effort (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/207) to
> > add futex benchmarks to perf-bench failed, I strongly believe that
> > perf is an ideal place for these kinds of programs. This patchset is
> > different from Hitoshi's because it does not try to take over
> > Darren's futextest suite, and only deals with finer grained aspects
> > of the kernel's implementation, and thus mostly useful for kernel
> > hacking. Furthermore, by being part of the kernel tree, it can get
> > more attention and naturally evolve with time.
>
> Looks pretty useful!
>
> Could the two approaches be merged?
Unless Darren doesn't want to, I don't see why not. I can resurrect
Hitoshi's original patch if/after this series is applied.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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