Re: [PATCH 01/13] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10

[Maarten Lankhorst <m.b.lankhorst@gmail.com>]

Hey,

Op 05-11-12 02:59, Luming Yu schreef:
> This patch is the first step to test some basic hardware functions like
> TSC to help people understand if there is any hardware latency as well
> as throughput problem exposed on bare metal or left behind by BIOS or
> interfered by SMI. Currently the patch tests TSC, CPU Frequency and
> RDRAND which is a new CPU instruction to get random number introduced in
> new CPU like Intel Ivy Bridge in stop_machine context,which is choosen to
> make sure testers fully control their system under test to rule out some
> level of unwanted noise.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luming Yu <luming.yu@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/misc/Kconfig           |   7 +
>  drivers/misc/Makefile          |   1 +
>  drivers/misc/hw_latency_test.c | 833 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 841 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/misc/hw_latency_test.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/Kconfig b/drivers/misc/Kconfig
> index b151b7c..5ed440b 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/misc/Kconfig
> @@ -114,6 +114,13 @@ config IBM_ASM
>  	  for information on the specific driver level and support statement
>  	  for your IBM server.
>  
> +config HW_LATENCY_TEST
> +	tristate "Testing module to detect hardware lattency and throughput"
> +	depends on DEBUG_FS
> +	depends on RING_BUFFER
> +	depends on X86
> +	default m
Is there any reason this tester couldn't easily be made to work for !x86?

Also I think it would make more sense to squash all fixes, and submit fixes for the things like
'[PATCH 07/13] HW-latency: delete too many "Fast TSC calibration using PIT" in cpufreq sampling'
before the actual patch. It seems this is not necessarily a hw-latency specific patch to me.

~Maarten