Hi Tony, On 8/25/2023 10:56 AM, Tony Luck wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:33:43AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> Hi Tony, >> >> On 7/22/2023 12:07 PM, Tony Luck wrote: ... >>> @@ -190,6 +245,8 @@ int get_cache_size(int cpu_no, char *cache_type, unsigned long *cache_size) >>> break; >>> } >>> >>> + if (cache_num == 3) >>> + *cache_size /= snc_ways(); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >> >> I am surprised that this small change is sufficient. The resctrl >> selftests are definitely not NUMA aware and the CAT and CMT tests >> are not taking that into account when picking CPUs to run on. From >> what I understand LLC occupancy counters need to be added in this >> scenario but I do not see that done either. > > This is a first step (the tests are definitely going to fail if > they have incorrect information about the cache size). > > For a fully reliable set of tests some major surgery will be required > to bind to CPUs and memory to control allocation and access. > What is the plan for making the tests more reliable? What is the use of this patch if it is just the first step? Reinette
