From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9127F3F for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:23:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601BD8F8040 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 05:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id UbiVWxS6ov4yI3YD for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 05:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9SCNjrU007628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:23:46 -0400 Received: from orion.maiolino.org (ovpn-113-27.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.27]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9SCNgfN023941 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:23:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:23:41 -0200 From: Carlos Maiolino Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: src/feature.c: print a number of online CPUs Message-ID: <20131028122341.GC2445@orion.maiolino.org> References: <20131023213152.GP2797@dastard> <1382604998-11037-1-git-send-email-stanislav.kholmanskikh@oracle.com> <20131024104042.GT2797@dastard> <20131024131800.GA27701@orion.maiolino.org> <20131024212307.GV2797@dastard> <526E1108.8070904@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <526E1108.8070904@oracle.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com sysconf patch looks ok to me, but, I've never worked with sysconf myself, so, although the patch looks good for me, I'd prefer Dave to take a deeper look on it and see if he spot any problem here. Cheers, On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:23:52AM +0400, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote: > > On 10/25/2013 01:23 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > >[ insert comment about not top-posting on mainling lists ] > > > >On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:18:01AM -0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > >>>Actually, I'd say we shoul default to 1 cpu if we can't get the > >>>number of CPUs. Clearly we have at least one if we can run this > >>>code. :) > >>I'm not sure about setting the default to 1 cpu might me a good behavior. My > >>apologies if I'm saying something wrong, but, if the 'tester' are trying to do > >>some test trusting on the amount of cpus, it might not be a good behavior. > >>I was thinking, how about issue an error message if xfstests can't properly > >>detect the amount of cpus from the system, and add any kind of usage option to > >>specify the numbers of cpus? So in case of a error while detecting the amount of > >>cpus. > >I'd much prefer the test runs with a single CPU as a default rather > >than not run at all. Most systems the tests run on support these > >sysconf parameters, so it's going to do what we expect, but quite > >frankly most tests shoul dnot need to know the number of CPUs. > > > >This one is probably misguided, anyway, in what it's doing - if we > >want to scale the load the test generates, then that's what > >$LOAD_FACTOR is for. Also, it' multiplies the number of CPUs by 50, > >then caps the result at 200, so in reality it's only scaling for up > >to 4 CPUs which doesn't really take into account the range of > >machines that we test on. > > Hi! > > Carlos, Dave, so what is the final resolution regarding my patch? > > Thank you. > > >Cheers, > > > >Dave. > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs