linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/24] selftests/resctrl: Create struct for input parameter

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: <d672de6e-9631-d8a8-b5e9-d1a1506cb16f@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:06:38 +0200 (EET)
From:   Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
cc:     linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...fujitsu.com>,
        Maciej Wieczór-Retman 
        <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] selftests/resctrl: Create struct for input
 parameter

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:

> Hi Ilpo,
> 
> On 11/3/2023 4:24 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2023 2:26 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> >>> index d3bf4368341e..5157a3f74fee 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> >>> @@ -141,13 +141,13 @@ void mba_test_cleanup(void)
> >>>  	remove(RESULT_FILE_NAME);
> >>>  }
> >>>  
> >>> -int mba_schemata_change(int cpu_no, const char * const *benchmark_cmd)
> >>> +int mba_schemata_change(const struct user_params *uparams)
> >>>  {
> >>>  	struct resctrl_val_param param = {
> >>>  		.resctrl_val	= MBA_STR,
> >>>  		.ctrlgrp	= "c1",
> >>>  		.mongrp		= "m1",
> >>> -		.cpu_no		= cpu_no,
> >>> +		.cpu_no		= uparams->cpu,
> >>>  		.filename	= RESULT_FILE_NAME,
> >>>  		.bw_report	= "reads",
> >>>  		.setup		= mba_setup
> >>> @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ int mba_schemata_change(int cpu_no, const char * const *benchmark_cmd)
> >>>  
> >>>  	remove(RESULT_FILE_NAME);
> >>>  
> >>> -	ret = resctrl_val(benchmark_cmd, &param);
> >>> +	ret = resctrl_val(uparams->benchmark_cmd, &param);
> >>>  	if (ret)
> >>>  		goto out;
> >>>  
> >>
> >> How about a new member of struct resctrl_val_param that points to 
> >> uparams? That would remove cpu_no from resctrl_val_param
> >> and have everything available when a test needs to run ... not copying
> >> some user parameters into struct resctrl_val_param and passing
> >> others as parameters.
> > 
> > I'm a bit allergic to adding more stuff into resctrl_val_param. It seems 
> > a structure where random stuff has been thrown at just because it exists.
> > In general, your point is very valid though because the members of 
> > resctrl_val_param should be auditted through to see how many of them are 
> > even useful after adding uparams and struct resctrl_test.
> > 
> > I could get rid of copying parameters from uparams to params and just 
> > passing uparams instead of benchmark_cmd into resctrl_val(). Would you be 
> > okay with that?
> 
> I am ok with that. I assume this implies that cpu_no will be removed from
> resctrl_val_param?

Yes.

-- 
 i.

> > Oh, and I really should rename resctrl_val() one day to something more 
> > meaningful too. :-) (but it won't be part of this series and will likely 
> > be another conflicty nightmare because resctrl_val_param too needs to 
> > be renamed...).
> 
> "Naming only" changes that are not part of something more substantive are not
> very appealing though.
> 
> Reinette
>