On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 16:55, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 16:48, Dev Jain <dev.jain@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 20/02/25 8:33 pm, Brendan Jackman wrote: > > > This calculation divides a fixed parameter by an environment-dependent > > > parameter i.e. the number of CPUs. > > > > > > The simple way to avoid machine-specific failures here is to just put a > > > cap on the max value of the latter. > > > > I haven't read the test, but if nr_cpus is being computed, then this > > value must be important to the test somehow? Would it potentially be > > wrong to let the test run for nr_cpus != actual number of cpus? > > Based on my _extremely hasty_ reading, the variable is misnamed and > it's actually a thread count not a CPU count. I can double check > that's the case and rename it. Oh yeah actually, it's only misnamed because I made it misnamed. So this patch needs to rename it for sure, thanks for pointing it out. (But yeah I upgraded my extremely hasty reading to an only hasty reading and I still don't think this test cares about the actual CPU topology).
