On 10/17/2018 01:03 PM, Moger, Babu wrote: > 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.mo...@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 >
Correction.. 2. Do we need README(or USAGE) here? I had too look at the code to check on "usage options" to run this utility. > 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 >>> >>>