Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] Adding general performance benchmarkingsubsystem to perf.

[Hitoshi Mitake]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] Adding general performance benchmarking subsystem to perf.
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:46:48 +0100

> 
> * Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Adding general performance benchmarking subsystem to perf.
> > This patch adds builtin-bench-pipe.c
> > 
> > builtin-bench-pipe.c is a benchmark program
> > to measure performance of pipe() system call.
> > This benchmark is based on pipe-test-1m.c by Ingo Molnar.
> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/tools/pipe-test-1m.c
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c |   89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c b/tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..081515e
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-bench-pipe.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
> > +/*
> > + *
> > + * builtin-bench-pipe.c
> > + *
> > + * pipe: Benchmark for pipe()
> > + *
> > + * Based on pipe-test-1m.c by Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > + *  http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/tools/pipe-test-1m.c
> > + * Ported to perf by Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > + *
> > + */
> 

Thanks for your detailed comments, Ingo!
I read your comments and rewrote the patch series.
I'll sent the series later as new thread.

> Ok, i think there's going to be quite a few of these benchmarks, so i'd 
> suggest you start a new directory for the benchmark modules: 
> tools/perf/bench/ for example.
> 
> We'll still have tools/perf/builtin-bench.c which represents the highest 
> level 'perf bench' tool - and new modules can be added by adding them to 
> bench/.
> 
> What do you think?

I agree with your way making new bench/ directory.
I feel that modules of bench should not be at top of tools/perf/.

> 
> All in one, i very much like the modular direction you are taking here. 
> 

Thanks, I'm grad to hear it.

> There will be a handful of more details i'm sure but once there's a good 
> base we can commit it - would you / will you be interested in extending 
> it further and adding more benchmark modules as well?
> 
> There's quite a few useful small benchmarks that people are using to 
> measure the kernel. Having a good collection of them in one place, with 
> standardized options and standardized output would be very useful.

Yes, of course! Unified benchmarking utilities will be big help for
Linux users including me.

e.g. I think that copybench (http://code.google.com/p/copybench/) will be
good benchmark for I/O, memory and file system.
I'll work on this after that the patch series I'll send later is merged.

Do you know any other good candidates to include?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/