On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:55 AM David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:34 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 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? > > > > IIUC, you're suggesting the test give tasks meaningful names so that the user can > > do taskset on the appropriate tasks? The goal is to ensure vCPUs are pinned before > > they do any meaningful work. I don't see how that can be accomplished with taskset > > without some form of hook in the test to effectively pause the test until the user > > (or some run script) is ready to continue. > > A taskset approach would also be more difficult to incorporate into > automated runs of dirty_log_perf_test. > > > > > Pinning aside, naming the threads is a great idea! That would definitely help > > debug, e.g. if one vCPU gets stuck or is lagging behind. > > +1 I also like the idea. Sean: Do you want a v6 with the naming patch or you will be fine taking v5, if there are no changes needed in v5, and I can send a separate patch for naming?
