linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Perf Bench: Locking Microbenchmark

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: <1412312253.27162.5.camel@linux-t7sj.site>
Date:	Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:57:33 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tuan Bui <tuan.d.bui@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	paulus@...ba.org, artagnon@...il.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
	dvhart@...ux.intel.com, Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Perf Bench: Locking Microbenchmark

On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 14:12 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:28:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > If you compare an strace of AIM7 steady state and 'perf bench 
> > lock' steady state, is it comparable, i.e. do the syscalls and 
> 
> Isn't "lock" too generic? Isn't this stressing some specific lock and if
> so shouldn't that be made abundantly clear in the 'perf bench' test name
> and in the docs?

yeah, and 'perf bench locking creat' just doesn't sound right.

--
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/