On Wed, 6 Mar 2024, tglozar@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Tomas Glozar <tglozar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Relative cpulists were added for measurements in 64ce7848 ("rteval: Add
> relative cpulists for measurements").
>
> Add support for relative cpulists also for loads. This works the same
> way as for measurements using parse_cpulist_from_config, only difference
> is there is no --loads-run-on-isolcpus option.
You need a better description here for people who don't know what this is
about. For example, why would this be useful? There is no mention of
--only-loads
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomas Glozar <tglozar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> rteval-cmd | 13 +++++++------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/rteval-cmd b/rteval-cmd
> index a5e8746..8572022 100755
> --- a/rteval-cmd
> +++ b/rteval-cmd
> @@ -340,28 +340,29 @@ if __name__ == '__main__':
> ldcfg = config.GetSection('loads')
> msrcfg = config.GetSection('measurement')
> msrcfg_cpulist_present = msrcfg.cpulist != ""
> - # Parse measurement cpulist using parse_cpulist_from_config to account for run-on-isolcpus
> + ldcfg_cpulist_present = ldcfg.cpulist != ""
I'm not a fan of this syntactic sugar it makes things wordier and less
readable IMO for programmers. I see I let you do that for msrcfg.cpulist,
but I'd prefer you put that back too
> + # Parse cpulists using parse_cpulist_from_config to account for run-on-isolcpus
I'm not religious about the 80 char term, but if you're already modifying
a comment, that overflows to the next line, why not neaten this up?
> # and relative cpusets
> cpulist = parse_cpulist_from_config(msrcfg.cpulist, msrcfg.run_on_isolcpus)
> if msrcfg_cpulist_present and not cpulist_utils.is_relative(msrcfg.cpulist) and msrcfg.run_on_isolcpus:
> logger.log(Log.WARN, "ignoring --measurement-run-on-isolcpus, since cpulist is specified")
> msrcfg.cpulist = collapse_cpulist(cpulist)
> - if ldcfg.cpulist:
> - ldcfg.cpulist = remove_offline(ldcfg.cpulist)
> + cpulist = parse_cpulist_from_config(ldcfg.cpulist, run_on_isolcpus=False)
Since run_on_isolcpus are False by default you could also just do
cpulist = parse_cpulist_from_config(ldcfg.cpulist)
since we know that we are reusing the interface in which run_on_isolcpus
are relevant, but in this case they are not, so explitly setting them to
False is confusing
> + ldcfg.cpulist = collapse_cpulist(cpulist)
> # if we only specified one set of cpus (loads or measurement)
> # default the other to the inverse of the specified list
> - if not ldcfg.cpulist and msrcfg_cpulist_present:
> + if not ldcfg_cpulist_present and msrcfg_cpulist_present:
> tmplist = expand_cpulist(msrcfg.cpulist)
> tmplist = SysTopology().invert_cpulist(tmplist)
> tmplist = cpulist_utils.online_cpulist(tmplist)
> ldcfg.cpulist = collapse_cpulist(tmplist)
> - if not msrcfg_cpulist_present and ldcfg.cpulist:
> + if not msrcfg_cpulist_present and ldcfg_cpulist_present:
> tmplist = expand_cpulist(ldcfg.cpulist)
> tmplist = SysTopology().invert_cpulist(tmplist)
> tmplist = cpulist_utils.online_cpulist(tmplist)
> msrcfg.cpulist = collapse_cpulist(tmplist)
>
> - if ldcfg.cpulist:
> + if ldcfg_cpulist_present:
> logger.log(Log.DEBUG, f"loads cpulist: {ldcfg.cpulist}")
> # if --onlyload is specified msrcfg.cpulist is unused
> if msrcfg_cpulist_present and not rtevcfg.onlyload:
> --
> 2.44.0
This works, but it needs to be more robust. For example
rteval-cmd --measurement-run-on-isolcpus --measurement-cpulist -2,4 -d5s
fails with
rteval-cmd: error: argument --measurement-cpulist: expected one argument
although this works
rteval-cmd --measurement-run-on-isolcpus --measurement-cpulist +0,-2,4
-d5s
Also, ranges are not supported, it would be nice to do
-2-5 instead of -2,3,4,5
Thanks
John
