Messages in this thread | | | From | "Moger, Babu" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/7] selftests/resctrl: Add resctrl selftest | Date | Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:03:13 +0000 |
| |
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.Moger@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
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 >> >>
| |