sched_mc test scenario
vincent.guittot at linaro.org
Thu Aug 4 10:26:43 UTC 2011
On 4 August 2011 09:57, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at linaro.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 08/03/2011 06:25 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>> On 3 August 2011 15:58, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at linaro.org> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>> it sounds good for me.
> Ok, cool. Thanks.
>> Concerning the functional tests, I need some hints :)
>> On the architecture we have, that will be difficult to verify sched_mc
>> works as expected.
>> If I understood correctly, in order to test that, we should have a
>> dual Cortex-A9 to check a program with two processes eating a lot of
>> cpu cycles will be bounded in the same socket_id when
>> The other processor staying idle or not running any of these
>> processes, right ? AFAIK, there is no such hardware, no ?
>>> you could integrate a non regression test which check that performance
>>> results in both sched_mc_power_savings=0 and sched_mc_power_savings=2
>>> . I have one which uses cyclictest and sysbench.
> Can you elaborate a bit ? Do you mean, we should run the test and
> compare the result to some hardcoded values (taking account the
> hysteresis of course) ?
yes we should compare the results with some hard coded values or a
reference test results. I don't know if it's possible to use the
result of a previous tests sequence in order to make some comparisons
et set a test has passed or failed ?
>>> Then, you're right
>>> that we must wait a bit before adding some functional tests which test
>>> that sched_mc is working as expected (from a power saving point of
>>> view) with sched_mc_power_savings=2
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the linaro-dev