Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] perf: Add more syscalls to benchmark

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 01:04:42PM -0800, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 5:23 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/03/2022 05:19 PM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/10/2022 11:50 AM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > >> Tested on x86_64, arm64, mips64 and loongarch64.
> > >>
> > >> Tiezhu Yang (4):
> > >>   tools x86: Keep list sorted by number in unistd_{32,64}.h
> > >>   perf bench syscall: Introduce bench_syscall_common()
> > >>   perf bench syscall: Add getpgid syscall benchmark
> > >>   perf bench syscall: Add execve syscall benchmark
> > >>
> > >>  tools/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/unistd_32.h | 23 ++++++---
> > >>  tools/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/unistd_64.h | 23 ++++++---
> > >>  tools/perf/bench/bench.h                    |  2 +
> > >>  tools/perf/bench/syscall.c                  | 76
> > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >>  tools/perf/builtin-bench.c                  |  2 +
> > >>  5 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ping, any more comments?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tiezhu
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > If this patch series has no value and is not acceptable,
> > or what should I do to update, please let me know.
> 
> I'm so sorry about being late a lot.
> I don't have any objection to this series.
> 
> For the execve bench, I think it's actually fork + execve
> then maybe it makes sense to have a fork only bench
> to compare the execve part precisely.
> 
> But it can be added later, so
> 
> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>

Applied.

- Arnaldo