From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754009AbZKIHzX (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 02:55:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753842AbZKIHzW (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 02:55:22 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:41803 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753796AbZKIHzV (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 02:55:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:55:12 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Hitoshi Mitake Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, tglx@linutronix.de, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, efault@gmx.de, acme@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] Adding general performance benchmarking subcommand to perf. Message-ID: <20091109075512.GG453@elte.hu> References: <20091103172926.GC11535@elte.hu> <20091104.194108.635980116686317754.mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> <20091108113013.GM11372@elte.hu> <20091109.122712.865412965745306501.mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091109.122712.865412965745306501.mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] Adding general performance benchmarking subcommand to perf. > Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:30:13 +0100 > > > > > > > > > Shouldnt we output the unit of measurement, i.e. '4.575 usecs'? Also, we > > > > should perhaps print something like: > > > > > > > > % perf bench sched pipe > > > > > > > > (executing 1000000 pipe operations between two tasks) > > > > > > > > 4.575 usecs per op > > > > 218579 ops/sec > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > I have to admit that single float value output is too simple. > > > So I'll fix the default output. > > > > > > But, I believe that simple form makes sense for > > > processing by scripts or graph tools like gnuplot. > > > I'll add the option (may be --simple) to switch > > > friendliness of outputs. > > > > Btw., could you make it Git-ish, i.e.: > > > > --format=short > > > > or: > > > > --format=simple > > > > Eventually more format options might be added. > > It's good idea. > I have to admit that reserving -s for simple output is not good idea. > I'll do this. I think --format=simple will be used by scripts mostly, so it doesnt matter that it's longer to type. We try to save the shorter options for humans and be conservative with them. Another angle is coherency between different subcommands - and '-s' is already used as -s/--sort in other perf subcommands, which does not match up with the '-s/--simple' usage. We try to match what the Git project does here - a good deal of infrastructure code in perf came from Git and i find Git very easy to use and it's managed well. It's not a hard rule: not all option name incoherencies are fixable or avoidable, and there's no big problem if something slips in - i just wanted to mention so that you can keep an eye on it when developing new features for perf bench. Ingo