linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] selftests/resctrl: Add resctrl selftest

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9c99a95d-de9a-6b33-a4c4-074b31515a7e@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:03:13 +0000
From:   "Moger, Babu" <Babu.Moger@....com>
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
        Arshiya Hayatkhan Pathan <arshiya.hayatkhan.pathan@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] selftests/resctrl: Add resctrl selftest

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@....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 
>>  
>>