On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 2:10 PM Michal Koutný mkoutny@suse.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 07:20:06AM GMT, Joshua Hahn joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com wrote:
+/*
- Creates a nice process that consumes CPU and checks that the elapsed
- usertime in the cgroup is close to the expected time.
- */
user_usec = cg_read_key_long(cpucg, "cpu.stat", "user_usec");nice_usec = cg_read_key_long(cpucg, "cpu.stat", "nice_usec");if (user_usec != 0 || nice_usec != 0)goto cleanup;Can you please distinguish a check between non-zero nice_usec and non-existent nice_usec (KSFT_FAIL vs KSFT_SKIP)? So that the selftest is usable on older kernels too.
Yes, this sounds good to me -- I will include it in a v4, which I am hoping to send out soon.
/** We fork here to create a new process that can be niced without* polluting the nice value of other selftests*/pid = fork();if (pid < 0) {goto cleanup;} else if (pid == 0) {struct cpu_hog_func_param param = {.nprocs = 1,.ts = {.tv_sec = usage_seconds,.tv_nsec = 0,},.clock_type = CPU_HOG_CLOCK_PROCESS,};/* Try to keep niced CPU usage as constrained to hog_cpu as possible */nice(1);cg_run(cpucg, hog_cpus_timed, (void *)¶m);Notice that cg_run() does fork itself internally. So you can call hog_cpus_timed(cpucg, (void *)¶m) directly, no need for the fork with cg_run(). (Alternatively substitute fork in this test with the fork in cg_run() but with extension of cpu_hog_func_params with the nice value.)
Thanks, Michal
Thank you for your feedback, Michal. The reason I used a fork in the testing is so that I could isolate the niced portion of the test to only the CPU hog. If I were to nice(1) --> cg_hog() in a single process without forking, this would mean that the cleanup portion of the test would also be run as a niced process, contributing to the stat and potentially dirtying the value (which is tested for accuracy via `values_close`).
The other thing that I considered when writing this was that while it is possible to make a process nicer, it is impossible to make a process less nice. This would mean that the comparison & cleanup portions would also be run nicely if I do not call fork().
What do you think? Do you think that this increase in granularity / accuracy is worth the increase in code complexity? I do agree that it would be much easier to read if there was no fork.
Alternatively, I can add a new parameter to cpu_hog_func_param that takes in a nice value. For this however, I am afraid of changing the function signature of existing utility functions, since it would mean breaking support for older functions or others currently working on this.
Thank you for your detailed feedback again -- I will also change up the diffstat and indentation issues you brought up from the first part of the patch.
Joshua