On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:03 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, Vipin Sharma wrote: > > 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: > > > > > 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? > > Definitely separate, this is an orthogonal change and I don't think there will be > any conflict. If there is a conflict, it will be trivial to resolve. But since > Wei provided a more or less complete patch, let's let Wei post a formal patch > (unless he doesn't want to). Sounds good!
