JMH and ocperf
shade at redhat.com
Fri Nov 18 11:16:15 UTC 2016
What you are explaining is the *output* story: sure, JMH will receive
the same output from either perf or ocperf.py.
My question is about the *input* story: why can't ocperf.py be the
drop-in compatible wrapper for perf? JMH does not do anything magical
about perf, it just invokes "perf <blah-blah>", and if any external tool
is providing the same input interface (e.g. accepts the same command
line the perf does) -- nothing needs changing in JMH.
I do believe this is a better interop story for the tool that claims to
be the perf wrapper: both input and output stories should match the ones
from the tool you are wrapping.
On 11/18/2016 12:01 PM, Sergey Melnikov wrote:
> Correct me, if I didn't understand you right.
> In fact, pmu-tools/ocperf does it. Let's treat ocperf as one more
> system-wide event-based profiler. But ocperf is just a wrapper over
> perf which passes flags to perf. Therefore, ocperf's output format and
> perf's one are equal. So, there is not need to write one more profiler
> So, I believe there are two options:
> 1. Use current Perf infrastructure (classes) in JMH and let user to
> overwrite executable name via environment variable. Thus, we will use
> the same parser as perfasm and changes are minimal. Moreover, user is
> fully responsible for issues of incompatibility between actual
> executable output and perf's reference output. I suggested this
> approach in my first letter.
> 2. Add one more profiler visible from '-lprof' flag output. In this
> approach it'd required to introduce new classes responsible for new
> profiles and register them as 'Profiler' in JMH internals. These
> classes should share code with perfasm's parser (we don't want to have
> 2 parsers for the same format, isn't it?). I believe it'll make JMH
> code slightly more difficult to understand. Also, it makes us to
> support this parser and be responsible for all issues of this parser.
> Yes, I agree the second way is a bit 'more right', but I'm not sure it
> worth to be implemented because there is no so many people who is
> interested in such a deep analysis. Also, environment variable
> overriding is user's area of responsibility and don't make us to
> support additional code.
> But anyway, it's just my point of view. If you disagree, I can
> implement the second approach.
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2016 09:57 PM, Sergey Melnikov wrote:
>>> So, I'd like to propose to modify JMH a bit: to let user to overwrite
>>> 'perf' executable name via environment variable. It let to use ocperf
>>> with JMH and to specify symbolic names via JMH parameters.
>>> Therefore, JMH run will look like:
>>> $ PERF=ocperf.py java -jar target/benchmarks.jar -prof
>>> Alexey, what do you think, if I implement this functionality, will it
>>> be possible to merge fix to trunk?
>> I am not resistant to the idea, but I am missing something here.
>> Why can't pmu-tools project provide the system/user-wide alternative for
>> perf, so that JMH and others just use that instead of hacking the
>> specifics in? This would seems like a proper way to do interop between
>> the tools.
More information about the jmh-dev