Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Jon Masters wrote: > On 11/18/2012 04:30 AM, Luming Yu wrote: > >> I'd be glad to do anything to push this tool into upstream. Please >> let me know your thoughts. Thanks /l > > I'm also happy to help test. I'll take a look over the TG holiday at > your latest version. > if we can make the tool upstream, probably we can ask more people to test. But not sure if arand is interested in this work anymore although he gave the work detailed review back to July , thanks Arand... To push the patch upstream, l'd like to ping you again. But if other maintainers also interested in the feature, I'd be very glad to work with them. Hello Peter, would you like to take this tool to upstream? Regards /l -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Jon Masters j...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/18/2012 04:30 AM, Luming Yu wrote: I'd be glad to do anything to push this tool into upstream. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks /l I'm also happy to help test. I'll take a look over the TG holiday at your latest version. if we can make the tool upstream, probably we can ask more people to test. But not sure if arand is interested in this work anymore although he gave the work detailed review back to July , thanks Arand... To push the patch upstream, l'd like to ping you again. But if other maintainers also interested in the feature, I'd be very glad to work with them. Hello Peter, would you like to take this tool to upstream? Regards /l -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On 11/18/2012 04:30 AM, Luming Yu wrote: > I'd be glad to do anything to push this tool into upstream. Please > let me know your thoughts. Thanks /l I'm also happy to help test. I'll take a look over the TG holiday at your latest version. Jon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Jon Masters wrote: > On 11/10/2012 09:48 PM, Luming Yu wrote: > >> Update the previous patch series to ACK all comments I've recevied so far >> for the tool: e.g. 1.Acked Jon Masters in source code as many code are from >> jcm, thanks very much Jon. 2. squashed all changes against new file I added >> into >> one. 3. Make it useful on non-x86. > > Thanks for taking this and doing the heavy lifting to get it upstream! I > wrote the original SMI detector really for RT debug purposes as we had > OEM systems that would generate large latencies and it was easier to > prove the point with nice graphs showing where the BIOS was injecting > unwanted SMIs. Glad to see the work being done to make it more generic > in nature. Maybe I'll come back with some ARM patches ;) > > Actually this exercise was very informative because it has helped shape > my input on ARMv8 designs. I'm very keen to get away from a world in > which world+dog feature is implemented inside an SMI-like context. It > should be done via a dedicated management processor (on-chip) instead. > > Jon. > thanks Jon, ping Arnd, would you take this into your tree? The value is when the feature finally done, we can finally have a reliable tool to count on for automatically sorting out hardware problems and differences that really matter to designing your software stack on bare metal, which means a lot to many of us dedicated to hardware development/enabling as a software engineer, especially when you have two similar platforms and need to rule out hardware latency that could be the root cause.. in many case, people would have to dig into various specs and lost... I'd be glad to do anything to push this tool into upstream. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks /l -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Jon Masters j...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/10/2012 09:48 PM, Luming Yu wrote: Update the previous patch series to ACK all comments I've recevied so far for the tool: e.g. 1.Acked Jon Masters in source code as many code are from jcm, thanks very much Jon. 2. squashed all changes against new file I added into one. 3. Make it useful on non-x86. Thanks for taking this and doing the heavy lifting to get it upstream! I wrote the original SMI detector really for RT debug purposes as we had OEM systems that would generate large latencies and it was easier to prove the point with nice graphs showing where the BIOS was injecting unwanted SMIs. Glad to see the work being done to make it more generic in nature. Maybe I'll come back with some ARM patches ;) Actually this exercise was very informative because it has helped shape my input on ARMv8 designs. I'm very keen to get away from a world in which world+dog feature is implemented inside an SMI-like context. It should be done via a dedicated management processor (on-chip) instead. Jon. thanks Jon, ping Arnd, would you take this into your tree? The value is when the feature finally done, we can finally have a reliable tool to count on for automatically sorting out hardware problems and differences that really matter to designing your software stack on bare metal, which means a lot to many of us dedicated to hardware development/enabling as a software engineer, especially when you have two similar platforms and need to rule out hardware latency that could be the root cause.. in many case, people would have to dig into various specs and lost... I'd be glad to do anything to push this tool into upstream. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks /l -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On 11/18/2012 04:30 AM, Luming Yu wrote: I'd be glad to do anything to push this tool into upstream. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks /l I'm also happy to help test. I'll take a look over the TG holiday at your latest version. Jon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On 11/10/2012 09:48 PM, Luming Yu wrote: > Update the previous patch series to ACK all comments I've recevied so far > for the tool: e.g. 1.Acked Jon Masters in source code as many code are from > jcm, thanks very much Jon. 2. squashed all changes against new file I added > into > one. 3. Make it useful on non-x86. Thanks for taking this and doing the heavy lifting to get it upstream! I wrote the original SMI detector really for RT debug purposes as we had OEM systems that would generate large latencies and it was easier to prove the point with nice graphs showing where the BIOS was injecting unwanted SMIs. Glad to see the work being done to make it more generic in nature. Maybe I'll come back with some ARM patches ;) Actually this exercise was very informative because it has helped shape my input on ARMv8 designs. I'm very keen to get away from a world in which world+dog feature is implemented inside an SMI-like context. It should be done via a dedicated management processor (on-chip) instead. Jon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 09:48:19PM -0500, Luming Yu wrote: > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:48:19 -0500 > From: Luming Yu > To: a...@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Luming Yu , Jon Masters , > Jon Masters > Subject: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10 > X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.12.1 > > Update the previous patch series to ACK all comments I've recevied so far > for the tool: e.g. 1.Acked Jon Masters in source code as many code are from > jcm, thanks very much Jon. 2. squashed all changes against new file I added > into > one. 3. Make it useful on non-x86. > > Please review and commit to misc tree. I will update the patch series if > anyone > has anymore comments. > > Thanks very much!!! > > Luming Yu (3): > HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10 > x86: Delete too many "Fast TSC .." in dmesg from HW_latency cyclic > sampling > fs: Fix crash caused by write to dummy debugfs interface like > HW_latency exposed > > arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 2 +- > drivers/misc/Kconfig | 6 + > drivers/misc/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/misc/hw_latency_test.c | 939 > + > fs/libfs.c | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 948 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 drivers/misc/hw_latency_test.c > > -- > 1.7.12.1 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > Hi, Luming Would you please send the first patch to LKML, too? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 09:48:19PM -0500, Luming Yu wrote: Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:48:19 -0500 From: Luming Yu luming...@gmail.com To: a...@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Luming Yu luming...@gmail.com, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org, Jon Masters j...@redhat.com Subject: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10 X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.12.1 Update the previous patch series to ACK all comments I've recevied so far for the tool: e.g. 1.Acked Jon Masters in source code as many code are from jcm, thanks very much Jon. 2. squashed all changes against new file I added into one. 3. Make it useful on non-x86. Please review and commit to misc tree. I will update the patch series if anyone has anymore comments. Thanks very much!!! Luming Yu (3): HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10 x86: Delete too many Fast TSC .. in dmesg from HW_latency cyclic sampling fs: Fix crash caused by write to dummy debugfs interface like HW_latency exposed arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 2 +- drivers/misc/Kconfig | 6 + drivers/misc/Makefile | 1 + drivers/misc/hw_latency_test.c | 939 + fs/libfs.c | 2 +- 5 files changed, 948 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 drivers/misc/hw_latency_test.c -- 1.7.12.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ Hi, Luming Would you please send the first patch to LKML, too? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH update 0/3] HW-latency: hardware latency test 0.10
On 11/10/2012 09:48 PM, Luming Yu wrote: Update the previous patch series to ACK all comments I've recevied so far for the tool: e.g. 1.Acked Jon Masters in source code as many code are from jcm, thanks very much Jon. 2. squashed all changes against new file I added into one. 3. Make it useful on non-x86. Thanks for taking this and doing the heavy lifting to get it upstream! I wrote the original SMI detector really for RT debug purposes as we had OEM systems that would generate large latencies and it was easier to prove the point with nice graphs showing where the BIOS was injecting unwanted SMIs. Glad to see the work being done to make it more generic in nature. Maybe I'll come back with some ARM patches ;) Actually this exercise was very informative because it has helped shape my input on ARMv8 designs. I'm very keen to get away from a world in which world+dog feature is implemented inside an SMI-like context. It should be done via a dedicated management processor (on-chip) instead. Jon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
