On Saturday, October 15, 2022 3:03 AM, Sean Christopherson 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). Yeah, I'm glad to take care of this. There are other places (e.g. hardware_disable_test.c) that seem good to have this as well, I'll cover them in one patchset.
