On Fri, 13 Mar 2026, Reinette Chatre wrote:

> As the CAT test reads the same buffer into different sized cache portions
> it compares the number of cache misses against an expected percentage
> based on the size of the cache portion.
> 
> Systems and test conditions vary. The CAT test is a test of resctrl
> subsystem health and not a test of the hardware architecture so it is not
> required to place requirements on the size of the difference in cache
> misses, just that the number of cache misses when reading a buffer
> increase as the cache portion used for the buffer decreases.
> 
> Remove additional constraint on how big the difference between cache
> misses should be as the cache portion size changes. Only test that the
> cache misses increase as the cache portion size decreases. This remains
> a good sanity check of resctrl subsystem health while reducing impact
> of hardware architectural differences and the various conditions under
> which the test may run.
> 
> Increase the size difference between cache portions to additionally avoid
> any consequences resulting from smaller increments.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Chen Yu <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes since v2:
> - Add Chen Yu's tag.
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c | 33 ++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c 
> b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
> index f00b622c1460..8bc47f06679a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
> @@ -14,42 +14,20 @@
>  #define RESULT_FILE_NAME     "result_cat"
>  #define NUM_OF_RUNS          5
>  
> -/*
> - * Minimum difference in LLC misses between a test with n+1 bits CBM to the
> - * test with n bits is MIN_DIFF_PERCENT_PER_BIT * (n - 1). With e.g. 5 vs 4
> - * bits in the CBM mask, the minimum difference must be at least
> - * MIN_DIFF_PERCENT_PER_BIT * (4 - 1) = 3 percent.
> - *
> - * The relationship between number of used CBM bits and difference in LLC
> - * misses is not expected to be linear. With a small number of bits, the
> - * margin is smaller than with larger number of bits. For selftest purposes,
> - * however, linear approach is enough because ultimately only pass/fail
> - * decision has to be made and distinction between strong and stronger
> - * signal is irrelevant.
> - */
> -#define MIN_DIFF_PERCENT_PER_BIT     1UL
> -
>  static int show_results_info(__u64 sum_llc_val, int no_of_bits,
>                            unsigned long cache_span,
> -                          unsigned long min_diff_percent,
>                            unsigned long num_of_runs, bool platform,
>                            __s64 *prev_avg_llc_val)
>  {
>       __u64 avg_llc_val = 0;
> -     float avg_diff;
>       int ret = 0;
>  
>       avg_llc_val = sum_llc_val / num_of_runs;
>       if (*prev_avg_llc_val) {
> -             float delta = (__s64)(avg_llc_val - *prev_avg_llc_val);
> -
> -             avg_diff = delta / *prev_avg_llc_val;
> -             ret = platform && (avg_diff * 100) < (float)min_diff_percent;
> -
> -             ksft_print_msg("%s Check cache miss rate changed more than 
> %.1f%%\n",
> -                            ret ? "Fail:" : "Pass:", 
> (float)min_diff_percent);
> +             ret = platform && (avg_llc_val < *prev_avg_llc_val);
>  
> -             ksft_print_msg("Percent diff=%.1f\n", avg_diff * 100);
> +             ksft_print_msg("%s Check cache miss rate increased\n",
> +                            ret ? "Fail:" : "Pass:");

While I'm fine with removing the amount of change check, this no longer 
shows any numbers which would be a bit annoying if/when there's a failure.

-- 
 i.

>       }
>       *prev_avg_llc_val = avg_llc_val;
>  
> @@ -58,10 +36,10 @@ static int show_results_info(__u64 sum_llc_val, int 
> no_of_bits,
>       return ret;
>  }
>  
> -/* Remove the highest bit from CBM */
> +/* Remove the highest bits from CBM */
>  static unsigned long next_mask(unsigned long current_mask)
>  {
> -     return current_mask & (current_mask >> 1);
> +     return current_mask & (current_mask >> 2);
>  }
>  
>  static int check_results(struct resctrl_val_param *param, const char 
> *cache_type,
> @@ -112,7 +90,6 @@ static int check_results(struct resctrl_val_param *param, 
> const char *cache_type
>  
>               ret = show_results_info(sum_llc_perf_miss, bits,
>                                       alloc_size / 64,
> -                                     MIN_DIFF_PERCENT_PER_BIT * (bits - 1),
>                                       runs, get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL,
>                                       &prev_avg_llc_val);
>               if (ret)
> 


Reply via email to