From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757248AbaFTDEH (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:04:07 -0400 Received: from g4t3427.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.55]:51714 "EHLO g4t3427.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754626AbaFTDEG (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:04:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1403233437.1581.5.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] perf bench: Add --repeat option From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Namhyung Kim Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa , mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp, Aswin Chandramouleeswaran , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:03:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1402942467-10671-1-git-send-email-davidlohr@hp.com> <1402942467-10671-2-git-send-email-davidlohr@hp.com> <877g4d8lye.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> <1403178338.20417.6.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 (3.6.4-3.fc18) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 23:51 +0000, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Davidlohr, > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > Hi Namhyung, > > > > On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 15:14 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > >> By adding a top-level option, I think it should be applied to all > >> benchmaks - but I guess it only supports sched messaging and futex, > >> right? > > > > Yes, for now only those. While there is opportunity for others to use it > > as well (perhaps shed-pipe & memcpy/memset), I don't think *all* > > benchmarks need multiple runs, ie: numa. > > Hmm.. but it'd make users confusing if one runs the numa benchmark > with -r 5 option but it only do a single run.. Yeah, it crossed my mind. For that to be addressed, we would have to come up with a way to determine if the argument was passed, and just inform the user that it is not [currently(?)] supported. Some alternatives would be to (i) explicitly document it, and/or (ii) print out the amount of runs that will be made and if that option is supported. All in all I think we need a better infrastructure for such things. I feel perf-bench suffers fundamental design issues and tries to cover too much. Thanks, Davidlohr