Re: [rt-tests v2 01/18] rt-util: Move parse_cpumask from cyclictest

[John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020, Daniel Wagner wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 11:46:54AM -0400, John Kacur wrote:
> > >  TARGETS = $(sources:.c=)
> > >  LIBS	= -lrt -lpthread
> > > -RTTESTLIB = -lrttest -L$(OBJDIR)
> > > +RTTESTLIB = -lrttest -L$(OBJDIR) $(NUMA_LIBS)
> > 
> > Currently only cyclictest was compiled with NUMA_LIBS, this change will 
> > compile everything with NUMA_LIBS. I checked the size of the programs, and 
> > they don't grow that much with this change, but they are small programs to
> > begin with, do we want to keep this functionality separate?
> 
> My thinking is, that the most important program for testing seems to be
> cyclictest. Everyone will run cyclictest on the target platform. Thus
> libnuma will be available. So there wont be any new unresolved
> dependencies.
> 
> I traded the size increase for simplification in the code base and build
> setup. Looking at the actual increase (x86_64, stripped) is not too bad:
> 
> 
> program                 old      new     diff
> ---------------------------------------------------
> cyclicdeadline          35488    35552     64 0.18%
> cyclictest              57632    57632      0 0.0%
> deadline_test           43712    43776     64 0.15%
> hackbench               19168    19168      0 0.0%
> oslat                   36040    36072     32 0.089%
> pip_stress              27296    27360     64 0.23%
> pi_stress               44296    48456   4160 9.4%
> pmqtest                 31864    31928     64 0.2%
> ptsematest              31752    31816     64 0.2%
> queuelat                14600    14600      0 0.0%
> rt-migrate-test         31696    31728     32 0.1%
> signaltest              31712    31776     64 0.2%
> sigwaittest             31792    31856     64 0.2%
> ssdd                    14744    14744      0 0.0%
> svsematest              31856    31920     64 0.2%
> 
> 
> pi_stress is a bit odd though. Not sure what's happening there. Will
> look into it.
> 
> So I would prefer to go this route and makes things simpler in the code
> base.
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel
> 

You're really just simplifying the Makefile, not the code. :)
Well, that and I guess this means I'm asking you to separate any common
numa functionality into a separate lib. If you want you can just pull out
parse_time_string(), and parse_mem_string() for now until we hash out
what we want to do with the numa functionality later.

Does that work for you?

John