On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:06:32AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > 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, I have no immediate plan to re-architect the the resctrl self-tests. If you feel this step towards a solution is useless unless it is part of a complete solution, then I can drop it from this series. -Tony
