Hi Tejun,
Could you please take a look at this patch? After some back-and-forth
with Michal, this is the v3 with his Acked-by.
Thanks,
Shashank
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 08:08:41PM +0900, Shashank Balaji wrote:
> Current cpu.max tests (both the normal one and the nested one) are broken.
>
t.
Fixes: a79906570f9646ae17 ("cgroup: Add test_cpucg_max_nested() testcase")
Fixes: 889ab8113ef1386c57 ("cgroup: Add test_cpucg_max() testcase")
Acked-by: Michal Koutný
Signed-off-by: Shashank Balaji
---
Changes in v3:
- Simplified commit message
- Explained why the "u
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 06:07:12PM +0900, Shashank Balaji wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:59:15AM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 03:49:58PM +0900, Shashank Balaji
> > wrote:
> > > > 1. We don't need to separatel
Hi Michal,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:59:15AM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 03:49:58PM +0900, Shashank Balaji
> wrote:
> > > 1. We don't need to separately check user_usec because it'll always be
> > > less than user_usec^W usage_usec,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 09:26:56AM +0900, Shashank Balaji wrote:
> > > tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_cpu.c | 63 ---
> > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > > - user_usec = cg_read_key_long(cpuc
Hi Michal,
On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 05:58:48PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 09:03:20PM +0900, Shashank Balaji
> wrote:
> > Current cpu.max tests (both the normal one and the nested one) are
> > inaccurate.
> >
> > They setup cpu.max with
0% error margin.
Also, use snprintf to get the quota string to write to cpu.max instead of
hardcoding the quota, ensuring a single source of truth.
Signed-off-by: Shashank Balaji
---
Changes in v2:
- Incorporate Michal's suggestions:
- Merge two patches into one
- Generate th
Hi Michal,
Thanks for the reply!
On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 02:34:29PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Hello Shashank.
>
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 11:13:54PM +0900, Shashank Balaji
> wrote:
> > cpu.max selftests (both the normal one and the nested one) test the
> >
m
tolerable error is set to 2000 us because on running this test 10 times,
the maximum `usage_usec` observed was 11,513 us, which corresponds to an
error of 1513 us.
user_usec is removed because it will always be less than usage_usec.
usage_usec is what really represents the throttling.
Signed-
sec is upto around double
the expected amount. That's too high of a margin for usage_usec.
Overall, this patchset improves the readability and accuracy of the
cpu.max tests.
Signed-off-by: Shashank Balaji
---
Shashank Balaji (2):
selftests/cgroup: rename `expected` to `duration` in
n the duration for which the cpu hog was set to run for.
Now it should ring an alarm to see `values_close` being called on
usage_usec and duration_usec, because they are not supposed to be close!
This is fixed in the next patch.
No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Shashank Balaji
---
tools/te
11 matches
Mail list logo
