From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: "Daniel Sangorrin" References: <1509438715-14039-1-git-send-email-daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp> <1509438715-14039-3-git-send-email-daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp> <005701d352a8$5e4722e0$1ad568a0$@toshiba.co.jp> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:27:28 +0900 Message-ID: <009201d35799$ddc38ef0$994aacd0$@toshiba.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: ja Subject: Re: [Fuego] [PATCH 2/3] cyclictest: modify specs List-Id: Mailing list for the Fuego test framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "'Bird, Timothy'" , fuego@lists.linuxfoundation.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Bird, Timothy [mailto:Tim.Bird@sony.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 2:53 AM > To: Daniel Sangorrin; fuego@lists.linuxfoundation.org > Subject: RE: [Fuego] [PATCH 2/3] cyclictest: modify specs > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Sangorrin on Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:29 PM > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bird, Timothy [mailto:Tim.Bird@sony.com] > ... > > > Here is my testlog for a beablebone black, running cyclictest > > > with spec 'twothreads'. That is, the result of running > > > job bbb.twothreads.Benchmark.cyclictest. > > > > > > # /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us > > > T: 0 (27542) P: 0 I:1000 C: 10000 Min: 22 Act: -885 Avg:2147483647 Max: - > > 126 > > > T: 1 (27543) P: 0 I:1500 C: 6690 Min: 23 Act: 3114 Avg:2147483647 Max: - > > 413 > > > > > > This doesn't look right. Did it find a bug with the Beaglebone kernel, > > > or is something wrong with cyclictest, or are the params not right for this > > > board? > > > > This is a bug in cyclictest. It seems a patch was sent after that tarball was > > released: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rt-users/msg15372.html > > > > So let's use the git repository as you mentioned. > > These results are from the test using the source from the git repository. > So, maybe the patch is not in the stable/v1.0 release, or never made > it in. The code looks different enough that the patch on the mail list > doesn't look like it would apply. Can you check into this? > If we need to, we can carry the patch in Fuego, but we should probably > push the issue again if the patch didn't make it upstream. Yes, you are right. I was able to reproduce the negative latencies on beaglebone and noticed they were gone on the latest development branch so I have upgraded the test to that branch. > > # Btw, I think there was a discussion about making a new cyclictest.. Maybe it > > would be > > good to influence in the outputformat? > Right now I think the output format is OK. There are some guidelines for test > output that we should probably provide to the authors of these kinds of test > (not just the rt-test developers) for future reference. This includes > things like making them machine-parsable, and using > markers that can be turned into unique identifiers for the test cases. > > I won't personally have time to work with the rt-test upstream, but I think > it would be good if we could influence them and at least report our needs. Ok, if the new format was hard to parse I will let them know. Thanks, Daniel