[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1HBxL0frhyK3qhx@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 21:46:44 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, dmatlack@...gle.com, andrew.jones@...ux.dev,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] dirty_log_perf_test vCPU pinning
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022, 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.
...
> Vipin Sharma (5):
> KVM: selftests: Add missing break between -e and -g option in
> dirty_log_perf_test
> KVM: selftests: Put command line options in alphabetical order in
> dirty_log_perf_test
> KVM: selftests: Add atoi_paranoid() to catch errors missed by atoi()
> KVM: selftests: Add atoi_positive() and atoi_non_negative() for input
> validation
> KVM: selftests: Run dirty_log_perf_test on specific CPUs
Minor nits on patch 5, but otherwise looks good. Might be worth sending a v6
just so there's no confusion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists