lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] selftests/resctrl: Add resctrl selftest
Date
Hi Fenghua,
My few comments.

On 10/17/2018 09:40 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>
>
> On 10/16/2018 03:32 PM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>>> From: Moger, Babu [mailto:Babu.Moger@amd.com]
>>> On 10/16/2018 11:56 AM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>>>> With more and more resctrl features are being added by Intel, AMD and
>>>> ARM, a test tool is becoming more and more useful to validate that
>>>> both hardware and software functionalities work as expected.
>>>
>>> I like the initiative here. It is always good to have a single code base.
>>>
>>> One question. I see that there is a tool at https://github.com/intel/intel-cmt-cat to test and verify the functionality of resctrl feature. I also see some of the distros have this tool already.
>>> Is this tool going to replace intel-cmt-cat? I have not looked at the
>>> patches closely yet.
>>
>> No, the selftest in this patch set will not replace intel-cmt-cat or
>> vice versa.
>>
>> The selftest in this patch set has a different purpose from intel-cmt-cat:
>> the selftest is a test tool which validates resctrl functionalities while
>> intel-cmt-cat is mainly a utility that provides base library for higher
>> level applications including performance analysis tools, benchmark measurement
>> tools, and potential resctrl tests. For example, running MBA test in the
>> selftests tells MBA working or not working (fail/pass) right way. The
>
> Ok. Sure. Let me take a look at selftest closely. Will send my feedback soon.
>
>> intel-cmt-cat doesn't have this testing capability unless we extend the
>> tool.
>>
>> And intel-cmt-cat is maintained and developed by Intel. I don't think it's
>> easy to extend it to AMD and ARM features. The selftest will be maintained
>
> We1l.. We were hoping to have a common tool across. It makes it easy for
> distros. Probably, we can have a separate discussion on this.
>
>> and developed by the community and will hopefully cover all architectures.
>>
>> We have seen a few issues recently in resctrl and may see more issues
>> while expending the features. A convevient selftest may be useful to help
>> identify and fix those potential issues.

I don't know the rules for selftest. Here are my general comments.

1. File names are not consistent.
# ls *.c
fill_buf.c mba.c mbm.c resctrl.c resctrl_membw.c resctrl_tests.c
Few files start with resctrl_ prefix and others don't.

2. Do we need README(or USAGE) here? I had too

3. I saw lots of these errors.
"mba.c:111:2: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed
in C99 mode"
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
^

I had to change it to
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {



>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -Fenghua
>>
>>
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-17 20:03    [W:0.104 / U:2.632 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site