Hi All, I must have forgotten cc key persons. Sorry to make noise again. I need to know what the right practice is to get your attention to accept a new tool upstream like this one. About the tool: It's unique. It's simple. But it's valuable, But it's still a starting point. The tool is based on Jcm's latency testing tool in RT tree to detect SMI caused problem. Basically it's a testing tool to measure latency and bandwidth of raw hardware instructions and component functions exclusively in stop_machine context. It's a kernel module that can be run separately from kernel boot. The Goal is to test out hardware/BIOS caused problems in 2 minutes. To me, capable of measuring the intrinsic of hardware on which we build our software is always a better idea than blindly looking for data from any documents. In current version of the tool, we have a basic sampling facility and TSC test ready for x86. I plan to add more test into this tool to enrich our tool set in Linux. Any inputs are appreciated. :-) Thanks for your time. /l ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Luming Yu <luming.yu@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM Subject: Fwd: [patch] a simple hardware detector for latency as well as throughput ver. 0.1.0 To: LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hello everyone, I'm trying to push a new tool upstream. I'd like to hear back from you what the best practice is to get the job done. Thanks, Luming ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Luming Yu <luming.yu@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:59 PM Subject: Fwd: [patch] a simple hardware detector for latency as well as throughput ver. 0.1.0 To: sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jcm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Hi, I'd like to know if the patch looks good for linux-next to find its way upstream in 3.6. Thanks and regards, Luming ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Luming Yu <luming.yu@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:47 AM Subject: Fwd: [patch] a simple hardware detector for latency as well as throughput ver. 0.1.0 To: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: jcm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Hello akpm, I'd like to push the patch to upstream, but I'm not sure if jcm has extra bandwidth although he is also interested in having the tool upstream..So I'd like ping you to check if there is any chance to queue it up in your tree first.I will enhance it further after it's upstream. Thanks, Luming ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Luming Yu <luming.yu@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:37 AM Subject: [patch] a simple hardware detector for latency as well as throughput ver. 0.1.0 To: jcm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Hi Jon, The patch is the fist step to test some basic hardware functions like TSC to help people understand if there is any hardware latency as well as throughput problem exposed on bare metal or left behind by BIOS or interfered by SM. Currently the patch tests hardware features (tsc,freq, and rdrandom whiich is new instruction to get random number) in stop_machine context. I will add more after the first step get merged for those guys who want to directly play with new hardware functions. I suppose I can add your signed-off-by as the code is derived from your hwlat_dector. I'm also reuqesting if you are going to queue it up somewhere that can be pulled into 3.5. Of cause, I will update the patch based upon any comments that you think must be fixed for 3.5 merge. Thanks, Luming Signed-off-by Luming Yu <luming.yu@xxxxxxxxx> Kconfig | 7 Makefile | 2 hw_test.c | 954 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 963 insertions(+) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
