From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BDCC32789 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:22:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34EA92081D for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:22:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 34EA92081D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=stgolabs.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730810AbeKGAsb (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2018 19:48:31 -0500 Received: from smtp2.provo.novell.com ([137.65.250.81]:44293 "EHLO smtp2.provo.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729728AbeKGAsb (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2018 19:48:31 -0500 Received: from linux-r8p5.suse.de (prv-ext-foundry1int.gns.novell.com [137.65.251.240]) by smtp2.provo.novell.com with ESMTP (TLS encrypted); Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:22:40 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: acme@kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, jbaron@akamai.com, dave@stgolabs.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 0/2] perf-bench: introduce epoll benchmarks Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 07:22:24 -0800 Message-Id: <20181106152226.20883-1-dave@stgolabs.net> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.16.4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, I've been doing work on epoll, and I've found that most related (micro)benchmarks are either randomly scattered across the net, or simply non-existent. These patches are a start to addressing this (more to come). Similar to what we have for futexes, perf-bench allows kernel developers mainly to quickly test performance changes to the code in question. Similarly, such programs are not intended for comparing different IO polling methods. Hence everything is very adhoc and outputs raw microbenchmark numbers. Also this uses eventfd, similar tools tend to use pipes or sockets, but the result is the same. Thanks! Davidlohr Bueso (2): perf-bench: Add epoll parallel epoll_wait benchmark perf-bench: Add epoll_ctl(2) benchmark tools/perf/Documentation/perf-bench.txt | 10 + tools/perf/bench/Build | 3 + tools/perf/bench/bench.h | 3 + tools/perf/bench/epoll-ctl.c | 411 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ tools/perf/bench/epoll-wait.c | 536 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tools/perf/builtin-bench.c | 9 + 6 files changed, 972 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/perf/bench/epoll-ctl.c create mode 100644 tools/perf/bench/epoll-wait.c -- 2.16.4