From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Doucha Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 13:50:59 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] cpuhotplug05.sh: Rewrite test case In-Reply-To: <31fe4c0c-863e-4ba6-d8d7-1af909013fb7@163.com> References: <20191202101943.17335-1-ice_yangxiao@163.com> <7b7c1e8a-1db1-bf9f-96ff-01803416120e@suse.cz> <31fe4c0c-863e-4ba6-d8d7-1af909013fb7@163.com> Message-ID: <8f5e7d2a-34a8-5d2a-658c-a1f535fd1cc7@suse.cz> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On 12/9/19 4:13 AM, Xiao Yang wrote: >> Your new scenario has two problems: >> >> - You have to run at least two test loops to verify that reactivating a >> CPU doesn't break /proc/stat entries. > > I think running cpuhotplug05.sh with -i 2 can verfiy this point. > > Perhaps we can add -i option to runtest/cpuhotplug, or do you prefer to > keep the original scenario? I'd prefer keeping the original scenario (with your version of cleanup). Running extra iterations of the same test should not be required to get the full intended test coverage. >> - Also consider doing the above check for all CPUs to increase test >> coverage. > > Is it necessary to add above check for all CPUs? > > This test is designed to test specified CPU so you can test each CPU by > using -c option. It's not necessary but it'd be a nice addition. Note that running the test script multiple times with different -c arguments does not fully cover this extra check. Turning a CPU core off and on again might reset its /proc/stat line into a sane state while breaking all the others. -- Martin Doucha mdoucha@suse.cz QA Engineer for Software Maintenance SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. CORSO IIa Krizikova 148/34 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic