[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <664c2c34-1514-421f-b3e4-3aec1139f8e3@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 15:21:26 +0100
From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] selftests/sched_ext: Add test for sched_ext
dl_server
On 10/20/25 14:55, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 02:26:17PM +0100, Christian Loehle wrote:
>> On 10/17/25 10:26, Andrea Righi wrote:
>>> Add a selftest to validate the correct behavior of the deadline server
>>> for the ext_sched_class.
>>>
>>> [ Joel: Replaced occurences of CFS in the test with EXT. ]
>>>
>>> Co-developed-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/Makefile | 1 +
>>> .../selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.bpf.c | 23 ++
>>> tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.c | 214 ++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 238 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.bpf.c
>>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.c
>>
>>
>> Does this pass consistently for you?
>> For a loop of 1000 runs I'm getting total runtime numbers for the EXT task of:
>>
>> 0.000 - 0.261 | (7)
>> 0.261 - 0.522 | ###### (86)
>> 0.522 - 4.437 | (0)
>> 4.437 - 4.698 | (1)
>> 4.698 - 4.959 | ################### (257)
>> 4.959 - 5.220 | ################################################## (649)
>>
>> I'll try to see what's going wrong here...
>
> Is that 1000 runs of total_bw? Yeah, the small ones don't look right at
> all, unless they're caused by some errors in the measurement (or something
> wrong in the test itself). Still better than without the dl_server, but
> it'd be nice to understand what's going on. :)
>
> I'll try to reproduce that on my side as well.
>
Yes it's pretty much
for i in $(seq 0 999); do ./runner -t rt_stall ; sleep 10; done
I also tried to increase the runtime of the test, but results look the same so I
assume the DL server isn't running in the fail cases.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists