[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DS0PR11MB63732F6E4B35CE11C9963521DC249@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 15:16:01 +0000
From: "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To: "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>
CC: "andrew.jones@...ux.dev" <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 0/5] dirty_log_perf_test vCPU pinning
On Friday, October 14, 2022 11:12 PM, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 6:06 AM, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > Pin vCPUs to a host physical CPUs (pCPUs) in dirty_log_perf_test and
> > optionally pin the main application thread to a physical cpu if
> > provided. All tests based on perf_test_util framework can take advantage of
> it if needed.
> >
> > While at it, I changed atoi() to atoi_paranoid(), atoi_positive,
> > atoi_non_negative() in other tests, sorted command line options
> > alphabetically in dirty_log_perf_test, and added break between -e and
> > -g which was missed in original commit when -e was introduced.
>
> Just curious why not re-using the existing tools (e.g. taskset) to do the pinning?
>
> For example, with below changes:
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/perf_test_util.c b/tools/testing/se
> lftests/kvm/lib/perf_test_util.c
> index 9618b37c66f7..aac58d1acb3c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/perf_test_util.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/perf_test_util.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,7 @@ void perf_test_start_vcpu_threads(int nr_vcpus,
> void (*vcpu_fn)(struct
> perf_test_vcpu_args *)) {
> int i;
> + char vcpu_name[5];
Typo, should be "vcpu_name[6]" here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists