Perf support (or lack of it)
1. Perf is becoming more and more popular.
2. ARM user experience is far from being optimal.
3. The current Ubuntu packaging system is far from being simple to use
(Ubuntu scripts suggest installing package called "x", but actual
package one has to install is called "y").
4. It is not available at all in Android builds (at least to my
knowledge)
5. Chip-specific support has low priority in LTs - we're waiting for
OMAP4 perf for nearly a half or year now...
6. Perf status is not validated by anyone, while simple LAVA tests could
be added with minimal cost.
Blueprint information
- Status:
- Not started
- Approver:
- None
- Priority:
- Undefined
- Drafter:
- Paweł Moll
- Direction:
- Needs approval
- Assignee:
- Zach Pfeffer
- Definition:
- New
- Series goal:
- None
- Implementation:
-
Unknown
- Milestone target:
- None
- Started by
- Completed by
Related branches
Whiteboard
Notes from Linaro Connect 12Q2 session
http://
perf on ARM
----------------
A. KERNEL
1. platform device / DT node
- missing on Samsung Orion, probably due to problems with silicon design
- OMAP4, silicon problems again
2. errata
3. configuration in Linaro kernels
- purposely disabled on OMAP
- missing on some platforms (?)
4. non-standard use cases
- oprofile
- gator
B. USER SPACE
1. standard perf tool
- packaging / naming issues - https:/
- With the CI kernel packages we should have one single package that would install perf
- perf would be tested daily, so we need a comon way to install and run perf
2. other users
- PAPI / R&D
- Streamline (?)
C. MAINTENANCE & VALIDATION
1. no LAVA tests
- There's a test already available at LAVA, running perf report test
- The test is basically running the upstream test suite already available from perf
- The test would need to be ported to Android, together with the tool
2. no manual tests
- Getting it included at the test spreadsheet for both Ubuntu and Android
3. no sense of urgency in LTs
4. Who would be maintaining perf at Linaro?
- User space can be covered by the toolchain wg
- Kernel specific bits should come from the LT itself
- top level blueprint assigned to Zach Pfeffer
Action list:
ACTION: rsalveti to check with paul to add perf at the manual test spreadsheet for ubuntu
ACTION: rsalveti to check with jcrigby to get to a common kernel package for tools (and making sure they are available for all flavours we support)
ACTION: rsalveti to resolve https:/
ACTION: rsalveti to add the perf test case to the daily tests at Ubuntu
ACTION: pmoll to write down instructions on how to test and validate perf manually
ACTION: pmoll to arrange communication between Zach Pfeffer and Dave Stubbs regarding perf tests on LAVA
