So right now there's a somewhat inconsistent mess of the benchmarking
code and options sometimes calling benchmarked functions 'functions',
sometimes calling them 'routines'.
Name them 'functions' consistently.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1445241870-24854-14-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org
[ Updated perf-bench man page, pointed out by David Ahern ]
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
We have three benchmarking subsystems that specify some sort of 'number
of loops' parameter - but all of them do it inconsistently:
numa: -l/--nr_loops
sched messaging: -l/--loops
mem memset/memcpy: -i/--iterations
Harmonize them to -l/--nr_loops by picking the numa variant - which is
also the most likely one to have existing scripting which we don't want
to break.
Plus improve the parameter help texts to indicate the default value for
the nr_loops variable to keep users from guessing ...
Also propagate the naming to internal variables.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1445241870-24854-13-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org
[ Let the harmonisation reach the perf-bench man page as well ]
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
So 'perf bench mem memcpy/memset' consistently uses 'len' and 'length'
for buffer sizes - while it's really a memory buffer size. (strings have
length.)
Rename all affected variables.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1445241870-24854-10-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org
[ Update perf-bench man page ]
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
So 'perf bench mem memset/memcpy' has a CPU cycles measurement method,
but calls it 'cycle' (singular) throughout the code, which makes it
harder to read.
Rename all related functions, variables and options to a plural 'cycles'
nomenclature.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1445241870-24854-8-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org
[ s/--cycle/--cycles/g in perf-bench man page ]
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
So 'perf bench mem memcpy/memset' has elaborate code to measure
memcpy()/memset() performance both with freshly allocated buffers (which
includes initial page fault overhead) and with preallocated buffers.
But the thing is, the resulting bandwidth results are mostly
meaningless, because page faults dominate so much of the cost.
It might make sense to measure cache cold vs. cache hot performance, but
the code does not do this.
So remove this complication, and always prefault the ranges before using
them.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1445241870-24854-6-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org
[ Remove --no-prefault, --only-prefault from docs, noticed by David Ahern ]
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Allows a way of measuring low level kernel implementation of FUTEX_LOCK_PI and
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI.
The program comes in two flavors:
(i) single futex (default), all threads contend on the same uaddr. For the
sake of the benchmark, we call into kernel space even when the lock is
uncontended. The kernel will set it to TID, any waters that come in and
contend for the pi futex will be handled respectively by the kernel.
(ii) -M option for multiple futexes, each thread deals with its own futex. This
is a trivial scenario and only measures kernel handling of 0->TID transition.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1436259353.12255.78.camel@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
The futex-wake benchmark only measures wakeups done within a single
process. While this has value in its own, it does not really generate
any hb->lock contention.
A new benchmark 'wake-parallel' is added, by extending the futex-wake
code such that we can measure parallel waker threads. The program output
shows the avg per-thread latency in order to complete its share of
wakeups:
Run summary [PID 13474]: blocking on 512 threads (at [private] futex 0xa88668), 8 threads waking up 64 at a time.
[Run 1]: Avg per-thread latency (waking 64/512 threads) in 0.6230 ms (+-15.31%)
[Run 2]: Avg per-thread latency (waking 64/512 threads) in 0.5175 ms (+-29.95%)
[Run 3]: Avg per-thread latency (waking 64/512 threads) in 0.7578 ms (+-18.03%)
[Run 4]: Avg per-thread latency (waking 64/512 threads) in 0.8944 ms (+-12.54%)
[Run 5]: Avg per-thread latency (waking 64/512 threads) in 1.1204 ms (+-23.85%)
Avg per-thread latency (waking 64/512 threads) in 0.7826 ms (+-9.91%)
Naturally, different combinations of numbers of blocking and waker
threads will exhibit different information.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1431110280-20231-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
There are a number of benchmarks that do single runs and as a result
does not really help users gain a general idea of how the workload
performs. So the user must either manually do multiple runs or just use
single bogus results.
This option will enable users to specify the amount of runs (arbitrarily
defaulted to 10, to use the existing benchmarks default) through the
'--repeat' option. Add it to perf-bench instead of implementing it
always in each specific benchmark.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1402942467-10671-2-git-send-email-davidlohr@hp.com
[ Kept the existing default of 10, changing it to something else should
be done on separate patch ]
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
As Namhyung Kim pointed, there are confused namings and descriptions of words
"cycle" and "clock" in mem-memset.c and mem-memcpy.c.
With the option "-c" (or "--clock", now renamed as "--cycle"), mem subsystem
measures cost of memset() and memcpy() with cpu-cycles event.
But current mem subsystem source code contains lots of confused variable
namings and descriptions with "clock" (e.g. the variable use_clock). This is a
very bad style because there is another software event named "cpu-clock". This
patch replaces wrong usage of "clock" to "cycle".
v2: modified Documentation/perf-bench.txt for the descriptions of
--cycle option
Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1341236777-18457-1-git-send-email-h.mitake@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
The current perf-bench documentation has a couple of typos and even
lacks entire description of mem subsystem. Fix it.
Reported-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340172486-17805-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Correct typos in perf bench & perf sched help text.
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
LKML-Reference: <20100331113100.cc898487.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
This patch adds new document about perf-bench.
Man page and html will be provided for user.
Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
LKML-Reference: <1257853855-28934-3-git-send-email-mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
