Hi Shaopeng,
On 10/4/2022 6:39 PM, Shaopeng Tan wrote:
> Before exiting each test function(run_cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test()),
> test results("ok","not ok") are printed by ksft_test_result() and then
> temporary result files are cleaned by function
> cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test_cleanup().
> However, before running ksft_test_result(),
> function cmt/cat/mbm/mba_test_cleanup()
> has been run in each test function as follows:
> cmt_resctrl_val()
> cat_perf_miss_val()
> mba_schemata_change()
> mbm_bw_change()
>
> Remove duplicate codes that clear each test result file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
> index df0d8d8526fc..8732cf736528 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static void run_mbm_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span,
> ksft_test_result(!res, "MBM: bw change\n");
> if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && res)
> ksft_print_msg("Intel MBM may be inaccurate when Sub-NUMA Clustering is enabled. Check BIOS configuration.\n");
> - mbm_test_cleanup();
> }
>
> static void run_mba_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span,
> @@ -107,7 +106,6 @@ static void run_mba_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int span,
> sprintf(benchmark_cmd[1], "%d", span);
> res = mba_schemata_change(cpu_no, bw_report, benchmark_cmd);
> ksft_test_result(!res, "MBA: schemata change\n");
> - mba_test_cleanup();
> }
>
> static void run_cmt_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no)
> @@ -126,7 +124,6 @@ static void run_cmt_test(bool has_ben, char **benchmark_cmd, int cpu_no)
> ksft_test_result(!res, "CMT: test\n");
> if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && res)
> ksft_print_msg("Intel CMT may be inaccurate when Sub-NUMA Clustering is enabled. Check BIOS configuration.\n");
> - cmt_test_cleanup();
> }
>
> static void run_cat_test(int cpu_no, int no_of_bits)
> @@ -142,7 +139,6 @@ static void run_cat_test(int cpu_no, int no_of_bits)
>
> res = cat_perf_miss_val(cpu_no, no_of_bits, "L3");
> ksft_test_result(!res, "CAT: test\n");
> - cat_test_cleanup();
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
I think this is the right direction ... but you fell into the trap that I
warned you about in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/bdb19cf6-dd4b-2042-7cda-7f6108e543aa@xxxxxxxxx/
- search for "please be careful".
Reinette
