From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753275Ab3LPKIe (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 05:08:34 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f178.google.com ([209.85.215.178]:47116 "EHLO mail-ea0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752446Ab3LPKId (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 05:08:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:08:28 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@ghostprotocols.net, mingo@redhat.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, jason.low2@hp.com, Waiman.Long@hp.com, scott.norton@hp.com, aswin@hp.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] perf-bench: introduce futex microbenchmarks Message-ID: <20131216100828.GA21304@gmail.com> References: <1387081917-9102-1-git-send-email-davidlohr@hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1387081917-9102-1-git-send-email-davidlohr@hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > This patchset adds three programs that stress and measure different > futex operations: (i) uaddr hashing, (ii) wakeups and (iii) > requeuing/waiting. > > More details and usage examples in each individual patch, along with > parameter descriptions in the code. > > While the previous effort (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/207) to > add futex benchmarks to perf-bench failed, I strongly believe that > perf is an ideal place for these kinds of programs. This patchset is > different from Hitoshi's because it does not try to take over > Darren's futextest suite, and only deals with finer grained aspects > of the kernel's implementation, and thus mostly useful for kernel > hacking. Furthermore, by being part of the kernel tree, it can get > more attention and naturally evolve with time. Looks pretty useful! Could the two approaches be merged? Thanks, Ingo