Re: [PATCH 0/7] selftests/resctrl: Add resctrl selftest

["Moger, Babu" <Babu.Moger@amd.com>]

On 10/17/2018 01:03 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> Hi Fenghua,
>  My few comments.
> 
> On 10/17/2018 09:40 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/16/2018 03:32 PM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>>>> From: Moger, Babu [mailto:Babu.Moger@amd.com] 
>>>> On 10/16/2018 11:56 AM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>>>>> With more and more resctrl features are being added by Intel, AMD and 
>>>>> ARM, a test tool is becoming more and more useful to validate that 
>>>>> both hardware and software functionalities work as expected.
>>>>
>>>> I like the initiative here. It is always good to have a single code base.
>>>>
>>>> One question. I see that there is a tool at https://github.com/intel/intel-cmt-cat to test and verify the functionality of resctrl feature. I also see some of the distros have this tool already.
>>>> Is this tool going to replace intel-cmt-cat? I have not looked at the
>>>> patches closely yet.
>>>
>>> No, the selftest in this patch set will not replace intel-cmt-cat or
>>> vice versa.
>>>
>>> The selftest in this patch set has a different purpose from intel-cmt-cat:
>>> the selftest is a test tool which validates resctrl functionalities while
>>> intel-cmt-cat is mainly a utility that provides base library for higher
>>> level applications including performance analysis tools, benchmark measurement
>>> tools, and potential resctrl tests. For example, running MBA test in the
>>> selftests tells MBA working or not working (fail/pass) right way. The
>>
>> Ok. Sure. Let me take a look at selftest closely. Will send my feedback soon.
>>
>>> intel-cmt-cat doesn't have this testing capability unless we extend the
>>> tool.
>>>
>>> And intel-cmt-cat is maintained and developed by Intel. I don't think it's
>>> easy to extend it to AMD and ARM features. The selftest will be maintained
>>
>> We1l.. We were hoping to have a common tool across. It makes it easy for
>> distros. Probably, we can have a separate discussion on this.
>>
>>> and developed by the community and will hopefully cover all architectures.
>>>
>>> We have seen a few issues recently in resctrl and may see more issues
>>> while expending the features. A convevient selftest may be useful to help
>>> identify and fix those potential issues.
> 
> I don't know the rules for selftest. Here are my general comments.
> 
>  1. File names are not consistent.
>   # ls *.c
>    fill_buf.c  mba.c  mbm.c  resctrl.c  resctrl_membw.c  resctrl_tests.c
>   Few files start with resctrl_ prefix and others don't.
> 
>  2. Do we need README(or USAGE) here? I had too
> 

Correction..

2. Do we need README(or USAGE) here? I had too look at the code to check
on "usage options" to run this utility.

>  3. I saw lots of these errors.
>     "mba.c:111:2: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed
> in C99 mode"
>   for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
>   ^
> 
>   I had to change it to
>    int i;
>    for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> 
> 
> 
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -Fenghua 
>>>  
>>>