On Wed, Aug 17, 2022, Vipin Sharma wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:25 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > +static int parse_num(const char *num_str) > > > +{ > > > + int num; > > > + char *end_ptr; > > > + > > > + errno = 0; > > > + num = (int)strtol(num_str, &end_ptr, 10); > > > + TEST_ASSERT(num_str != end_ptr && *end_ptr == '\0', > > > + "Invalid number string.\n"); > > > + TEST_ASSERT(errno == 0, "Conversion error: %d\n", errno); > > > > Is the paranoia truly necessary? What happens if parse_cpu_list() simply uses > > atoi() and is passed garbage? > > On error atoi() returns 0, which is also a valid logical cpu number. Lame. > We need error checking here to make sure that the user really wants > cpu 0 and it was not a mistake in typing. > I was thinking of using parse_num API for other places as well instead > of atoi() in dirty_log_perf_test. Yes, definitely. And maybe give it a name like atoi_paranoid()? > Yeah, it was either my almost duplicate functions or have the one > function do two things via if-else. I am not happy with both > approaches. > > I think I will pass an integer array which this parsing function will > fill up and return an int denoting how many elements were filled. The > caller then can use the array as they wish, to copy it in > vcpu_to_lcpu_map or cpuset. Eh, I doubt that'll be a net improvement, e.g. the CPUSET case will then need to re-loop, which seems silly. If the exclusive cpuset vs. array is undesirable, we could have the API require at least one instead of exactly one, i.e. TEST_ASSERT(cpuset || vcpu_map); ... cpu = atoi(cpustr); TEST_ASSERT(cpu >= 0, "Invalid cpu number: %d\n", cpu); if (vcpu_map) vcpu_map[i++] = cpu; if (cpuset) CPU_SET(cpu, cpuset); If we somehow end up with a third type of destination, then we can revisit this, but that seems unlikely at this point. > > > @@ -383,6 +450,26 @@ static void help(char *name) > > > backing_src_help("-s"); > > > printf(" -x: Split the memory region into this number of memslots.\n" > > > " (default: 1)\n"); > > > + printf(" -c: Comma separated values of the logical CPUs which will run\n" > > > + " the vCPUs. Number of values should be equal to the number\n" > > > + " of vCPUs.\n\n" > > > + " Example: ./dirty_log_perf_test -v 3 -c 22,43,1\n" > > > + " This means that the vcpu 0 will run on the logical cpu 22,\n" > > > + " vcpu 1 on the logical cpu 43 and vcpu 2 on the logical cpu 1.\n" > > > + " (default: No cpu mapping)\n\n"); > > > + printf(" -d: Comma separated values of the logical CPUs on which\n" > > > + " dirty_log_perf_test will run. Without -c option, all of\n" > > > + " the vcpus and main process will run on the cpus provided here.\n" > > > + " This option also accepts a single cpu. (default: No cpu mapping)\n\n" > > > + " Example 1: ./dirty_log_perf_test -v 3 -c 22,43,1 -d 101\n" > > > + " Main application thread will run on logical cpu 101 and\n" > > > + " vcpus will run on the logical cpus 22, 43 and 1\n\n" > > > + " Example 2: ./dirty_log_perf_test -v 3 -d 101\n" > > > + " Main application thread and vcpus will run on the logical\n" > > > + " cpu 101\n\n" > > > + " Example 3: ./dirty_log_perf_test -v 3 -d 101,23,53\n" > > > + " Main application thread and vcpus will run on logical cpus\n" > > > + " 101, 23 and 53.\n"); > > > puts(""); > > > exit(0); > > > } > > > > > @@ -455,6 +550,13 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > > } > > > } > > > > > > > I wonder if we should make -c and -d mutually exclusive. Tweak -c to include the > > application thread, i.e. TEST_ASSERT(nr_lcpus == nr_vcpus+1) and require 1:1 pinning > > for all tasks. E.g. allowing "-c ..., -d 0,1,22" seems unnecessary. > > > > One downside I can think of will be if we add some worker threads > which are not vcpus then all of those threads will end up running on a > single cpu unless we edit this parsing logic again. But adding worker threads also requires a code change, i.e. it won't require a separate commit/churn. And if we get to the point where we want multiple workers, it should be relatively straightforward to support pinning an arbitrary number of workers, e.g. enum memtest_worker_type { MAIN_WORKER, MINION_1, MINION_2, NR_MEMTEST_WORKERS, } TEST_ASSERT(nr_lcpus == nr_vcpus + NR_MEMTEST_WORKERS); void spawn_worker(enum memtest_worker_type type, <function pointer>) { cpu_set_t cpuset; CPU_ZERO(&cpuset); CPU_SET(task_map[nr_vcpus + type], &cpuset); <set affinity and spawn> } > Current implementation gives vcpus special treatment via -c and for > the whole application via -d. This gives good separation of concerns > via flags. But they aren't separated, e.g. using -d without -c means vCPUs are thrown into the same pool as worker threads. And if we ever do add more workers, -d doesn't allow the user to pin workers 1:1 with logical CPUs. Actually, if -c is extended to pin workers, then adding -d is unnecessary. If the user wants to affine tasks to CPUs but not pin 1:1, it can do that with e.g. taskset. What the user can't do is pin 1:1. If we don't want to _require_ the caller to pin the main worker, then we could do TEST_ASSERT(nr_lcpus >= nr_vcpus && nr_lcpus <= nr_vcpus + NR_MEMTEST_WORKERS); to _require_ pinning all vCPUs, and allow but not require pinning non-vCPU tasks.