Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:17:08 -0700 | From | Darren Hart <> | 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@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.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
| |