| Message ID | 20221005013933.1486054-4-tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Some improvements of resctrl selftest | expand |
Hi Shaopeng, On 10/4/2022 6:39 PM, Shaopeng Tan wrote: > Before exiting each test function(run_cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test()), > test results("ok","not ok") are printed by ksft_test_result() and then > temporary result files are cleaned by function > cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test_cleanup(). > However, before running ksft_test_result(), > function cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test_cleanup() > has been run in each test function as follows: > cmt_resctrl_val() > cat_perf_miss_val() > mba_schemata_change() > mbm_bw_change() > > Remove duplicate codes that clear each test result file. > > Signed-off-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c > index df0d8d8526fc..8732cf736528 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c > @@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static void run_mbm_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span, > ksft_test_result(!res, "MBM: bw change\n"); > if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && res) > ksft_print_msg("Intel MBM may be inaccurate when Sub-NUMA Clustering is enabled. Check BIOS configuration.\n"); > - mbm_test_cleanup(); > } > > static void run_mba_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span, > @@ -107,7 +106,6 @@ static void run_mba_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span, > sprintf(benchmark_cmd[1], "%d", span); > res = mba_schemata_change(cpu_no, bw_report, benchmark_cmd); > ksft_test_result(!res, "MBA: schemata change\n"); > - mba_test_cleanup(); > } > > static void run_cmt_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no) > @@ -126,7 +124,6 @@ static void run_cmt_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no) > ksft_test_result(!res, "CMT: test\n"); > if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && res) > ksft_print_msg("Intel CMT may be inaccurate when Sub-NUMA Clustering is enabled. Check BIOS configuration.\n"); > - cmt_test_cleanup(); > } > > static void run_cat_test(int cpu_no, int no_of_bits) > @@ -142,7 +139,6 @@ static void run_cat_test(int cpu_no, int no_of_bits) > > res = cat_perf_miss_val(cpu_no, no_of_bits, "L3"); > ksft_test_result(!res, "CAT: test\n"); > - cat_test_cleanup(); > } > > int main(int argc, char **argv) I think this is the right direction ... but you fell into the trap that I warned you about in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/bdb19cf6-dd4b-2042-7cda-7f6108e543aa@intel.com/ - search for "please be careful". Reinette
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c index df0d8d8526fc..8732cf736528 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c @@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static void run_mbm_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span, ksft_test_result(!res, "MBM: bw change\n"); if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && res) ksft_print_msg("Intel MBM may be inaccurate when Sub-NUMA Clustering is enabled. Check BIOS configuration.\n"); - mbm_test_cleanup(); } static void run_mba_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span, @@ -107,7 +106,6 @@ static void run_mba_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span, sprintf(benchmark_cmd[1], "%d", span); res = mba_schemata_change(cpu_no, bw_report, benchmark_cmd); ksft_test_result(!res, "MBA: schemata change\n"); - mba_test_cleanup(); } static void run_cmt_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no) @@ -126,7 +124,6 @@ static void run_cmt_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no) ksft_test_result(!res, "CMT: test\n"); if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && res) ksft_print_msg("Intel CMT may be inaccurate when Sub-NUMA Clustering is enabled. Check BIOS configuration.\n"); - cmt_test_cleanup(); } static void run_cat_test(int cpu_no, int no_of_bits) @@ -142,7 +139,6 @@ static void run_cat_test(int cpu_no, int no_of_bits) res = cat_perf_miss_val(cpu_no, no_of_bits, "L3"); ksft_test_result(!res, "CAT: test\n"); - cat_test_cleanup(); } int main(int argc, char **argv)
Before exiting each test function(run_cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test()), test results("ok","not ok") are printed by ksft_test_result() and then temporary result files are cleaned by function cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test_cleanup(). However, before running ksft_test_result(), function cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test_cleanup() has been run in each test function as follows: cmt_resctrl_val() cat_perf_miss_val() mba_schemata_change() mbm_bw_change() Remove duplicate codes that clear each test result file. Signed-off-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)