On 2023-10-27 at 15:32:58 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, Maciej Wieczór-Retman wrote:
>> On 2023-10-24 at 12:26:26 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>> >- ksft_print_msg("%s Check cache miss rate within %lu%%\n",
>> >- ret ? "Fail:" : "Pass:", max_diff_percent);
>> >+ ksft_print_msg("%s Check cache miss rate changed more than %.1f%%\n",
>> >+ ret ? "Fail:" : "Pass:", (float)min_diff_percent);
>>
>> Shouldn't "Fail" and "Pass" be flipped in the ternary operator? Or the condition
>> sign above "<" should be ">"?
>
>I must not touch ret ? "Fail:" : "Pass:" logic, it's the correct way
>around. If I'd touch it, it'd break what the calling code assumes about
>the return value.
>
>(More explanation below).
>
>> Now it looks like if (avg_diff * 100) is smaller than the min_diff_percent the
>> test is supposed to fail but the text suggests it's the other way around.
>>
>> I also ran this selftest and that's the output:
>>
>> # Pass: Check cache miss rate changed more than 3.0%
>> # Percent diff=45.8
>> # Number of bits: 4
>> # Average LLC val: 322489
>> # Cache span (lines): 294912
>> # Pass: Check cache miss rate changed more than 2.0%
>> # Percent diff=38.0
>> # Number of bits: 3
>> # Average LLC val: 445005
>> # Cache span (lines): 221184
>> # Pass: Check cache miss rate changed more than 1.0%
>> # Percent diff=27.2
>> # Number of bits: 2
>> # Average LLC val: 566145
>> # Cache span (lines): 147456
>> # Pass: Check cache miss rate changed more than 0.0%
>> # Percent diff=18.3
>> # Number of bits: 1
>> # Average LLC val: 669657
>> # Cache span (lines): 73728
>> ok 1 CAT: test
>>
>> The diff percentages are much larger than the thresholds they're supposed to
>> be within and the test is passed.
>
>No, the whole test logic is changed dramatically by this patch and
>failure logic is reverse now because of it. Note how I also altered these
>things:
>
>- MAX_DIFF_PERCENT -> MIN_DIFF_PERCENT_PER_BIT
>- max_diff_percent -> min_diff_percent
>- "cache miss rate within" -> "cache miss rate changed more than"
>
>The new CAT test measures the # of cache misses (or in case of L2 CAT
>test, LLC accesses which is used as a proxy for L2 misses). Then it takes
>one bit away from the allocation mask and repeats the measurement.
>
>If the # of LLC misses changes more than min_diff_precent when the
>number of bits in the allocation was changed, it is a strong indicator CAT
>is working like it should. Based on your numbers above, I'm extremely
>confident CAT works as expected!
>
>I know for a fact that when the selftest is bound to a wrong resource id
>(which actually occurs on broadwell's with CoD enabled without one of the
>later patches in this series), this test is guaranteed to fail 100%,
>there's no noticeable difference measured in LLC misses in that case.
Thanks for explaining. Looking at it again the patch makes sense and seems very
coherent.
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman
