On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 1:35 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 6:50 PM Andrew Werner <awerner32@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The headers were confusing. > > --- > > SOB is missing. Ack. > > commit log is too terse. > Pls explain what you're fixing. Ack. > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh > > index 91e3567962ff..8dd97f5108f0 100755 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh > > @@ -6,12 +6,12 @@ set -eufo pipefail > > > > RUN_RB_BENCH="$RUN_BENCH -c1" > > > > -header "Single-producer, parallel producer" > > +header "Single-consumer, parallel producer" > > for b in rb-libbpf rb-custom pb-libbpf pb-custom; do > > summarize $b "$($RUN_RB_BENCH $b)" > > done > > > > -header "Single-producer, parallel producer, sampled notification" > > +header "Single-consumer, parallel producer, sampled notification" > > Single-producer, consumer/producer competing on the same CPU, low batch count > > should also be fixed? In retrospect, having now reread these, I think that they were not mistakes. Ringbuf is always implicitly a single consumer concept. The point was to highlight that there is a single producer, and that it is running in parallel. I'll more generally take a more in depth pass at making these headers clearer and more consistent, and I'll address the other items in v2. Thanks for the review!
