linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] cgroup: Introduce cpu controller test suite

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: <YmHY3t9UC2/zDyMz@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:21:18 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Cc:     lizefan.x@...edance.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cgroup: Introduce cpu controller test suite

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 02:32:40PM -0700, David Vernet wrote:
> This patchset introduces a new test_cpu.c test suite as part of
> tools/testing/selftests/cgroup. test_cpu.c will contain testcases that
> validate the cgroup v2 cpu controller.
> 
> This patchset only contains testcases that validate cpu.stat and
> cpu.weight, but I'm expecting to send further patchsets after this that
> also include testcases that validate other knobs such as cpu.max.
> 
> Note that checkpatch complains about a missing MAINTAINERS file entry for
> [PATCH 1/4], but Roman Gushchin added that entry in a separate patchset:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220415000133.3955987-4-roman.gushchin@linux.dev/.

This looks great to me. A few small things:

* Can you please repost w/ Ingo and Peterz cc'd?

* Maybe cpucg instead of cgcpu?

* Single level testing is great but extending the case to cover deeper
  nesting level would be great. ie. a test case with multi level tree w/
  both under and over provisioned parts in the tree.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun