On 2024-02-05 at 14:41:30 +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>
>> validate_resctrl_feature_request() is used to test both if a resource is
>> present in the info directory, and if a passed monitoring feature is
>> present in the mon_features file.
>>
>> Refactor validate_resctrl_feature_request() into two smaller functions
>> that each accomplish one check to give feature checking more
>> granularity:
>> - Resource directory presence in the /sys/fs/resctrl/info directory.
>> - Feature name presence in the /sys/fs/resctrl/info/L3_MON/mon_features
>> file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changelog v4:
>> - Roll back to using test_resource_feature_check() for CMT and MBA.
>> (Ilpo).
>>
>> Changelog v3:
>> - Move new function to a separate patch. (Reinette)
>> - Rewrite resctrl_mon_feature_exists() only for L3_MON.
>>
>> Changelog v2:
>> - Add this patch.
>>
>> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c | 2 +-
>> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c | 2 +-
>> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mbm_test.c | 6 ++--
>> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h | 3 +-
>> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c | 33 +++++++++++++--------
>> 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c
>> index dd5ca343c469..c1157917a814 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cmt_test.c
>> @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static int cmt_run_test(const struct resctrl_test *test, const struct user_param
>> static bool cmt_feature_check(const struct resctrl_test *test)
>> {
>> return test_resource_feature_check(test) &&
>> - validate_resctrl_feature_request("L3_MON", "llc_occupancy");
>> + resctrl_resource_exists("L3");
>
>This not correctly transformed.
Oops, sorry, I'll fix it for the next version.
>
>> +/*
>> + * resctrl_mon_feature_exists - Check if requested monitoring L3_MON feature is valid.
>> + * @feature: Required monitor feature (in mon_features file).
>> + *
>> + * Return: True if the feature is supported, else false.
>> + */
>> +bool resctrl_mon_feature_exists(const char *feature)
>> +{
>> + char *res;
>> + FILE *inf;
>> +
>> if (!feature)
>> - return true;
>> + return false;
>>
>> - snprintf(res_path, sizeof(res_path), "%s/%s/mon_features", INFO_PATH, resource);
>> - inf = fopen(res_path, "r");
>> + inf = fopen("/sys/fs/resctrl/info/L3_MON/mon_features", "r");
>
>This became less generic? Could there be other MON resource besides L3
>one? Perhaps there aren't today but why remove the ability give it as a
>parameter?
During v2 discussion [1] Reinette made me realize this functionality only
interfaces with L3_MON/mon_features file and the 'resource' parameter isn't
needed. The 'mon_features' file is only mentioned for L3_MON and I don't know of
any plans for other MON resources so I assumed it doesn't need to be generic.
But sure, I can make it use a parameter if Reinette doesn't mind.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/2o7adr2cos6qcikcu7oop4ss7vib2n6ue33djgfeds3v6gj53f@uu45lomrp5qv/
>
>
>--
> i.
>
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman
