> My motivation comes from debugging cgroup selftests when strace is quite
> useful and your implementation adds the unnecessary fork which makes the
> strace (slightly) less readable.
This makes sense, thank you for the context. I hadn't considered debugging
considerations much, but I can imagine
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 02:07:22PM GMT, Joshua Hahn
wrote:
> The reason I used a fork in the testing is so that I could isolate the niced
> portion of the test to only the CPU hog. If I were to nice(1) --> cg_hog()
> in a single process without forking, this would mean that the cleanup portion
>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 2:10 PM Michal Koutný wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 07:20:06AM GMT, Joshua Hahn
> wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Creates a nice process that consumes CPU and checks that the elapsed
> > + * usertime in the cgroup is close to the expected time.
> > + */
> > + user_usec =
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 07:20:06AM GMT, Joshua Hahn
wrote:
> +/*
> + * Creates a nice process that consumes CPU and checks that the elapsed
> + * usertime in the cgroup is close to the expected time.
> + */
> +static int test_cpucg_nice(const char *root)
> +{
> + int ret = KSFT_FAIL;
> +
From: Joshua Hahn
Creates a cgroup with a single nice CPU hog process running.
fork() is called to generate the nice process because un-nicing is
not possible (see man nice(3)). If fork() was not used to generate
the CPU hog, we would run the rest of the cgroup selftest suite as a
nice process.
5 matches
Mail list logo
