linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] perf bench: Add --repeat option

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: <87a9927szk.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:54:07 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] perf bench: Add --repeat option

Hi Davidlohr,

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:03:57 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 23:51 +0000, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi Davidlohr,
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
>> > Hi Namhyung,
>> >
>> > On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 15:14 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> >> By adding a top-level option, I think it should be applied to all
>> >> benchmaks - but I guess it only supports sched messaging and futex,
>> >> right?
>> >
>> > Yes, for now only those. While there is opportunity for others to use it
>> > as well (perhaps shed-pipe & memcpy/memset), I don't think *all*
>> > benchmarks need multiple runs, ie: numa.
>> 
>> Hmm.. but it'd make users confusing if one runs the numa benchmark
>> with -r 5 option but it only do a single run..
>
> Yeah, it crossed my mind. For that to be addressed, we would have to
> come up with a way to determine if the argument was passed, and just
> inform the user that it is not [currently(?)] supported. Some
> alternatives would be to (i) explicitly document it, and/or (ii) print
> out the amount of runs that will be made and if that option is
> supported. All in all I think we need a better infrastructure for such
> things. 

I think we don't need to prevent users if she really wants to run a
benchmark multiple times.  So how about supporting it for all benchmarks
but providing sane per-benchmark defaults (i.e. 1 for numa, 5 for sched)?

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/