From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/4] lib: add new cgroup test API
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 05:48:42 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <595558785.15122565.1591609722778.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEemH2cCLY1htBYPm9tuefyzdg6EqmFRrcMin76kf_LcMA2f3A@mail.gmail.com>
----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:14 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 08:51:37PM +0800, Li Wang wrote:
> > >> I don't get why global variables are necessary.
> > >>
> > >
> > >The only reason to export them as global variables is to make the legacy
> > >read/write_cpuse_files() happy. So that I said it is a compromise.
> > >
> > >$ git grep tst_cgroup_new_path
> > >cpuset/cpuset01.c: write_cpuset_files(tst_cgroup_new_path, "cpus",
> > >buf);
> > >cpuset/cpuset01.c: write_cpuset_files(tst_cgroup_new_path, "mems",
> > >mems);
> > >cpuset/cpuset01.c: write_cpuset_files(tst_cgroup_new_path, "mems",
> > >buf);
> > >cpuset/cpuset01.c: write_cpuset_files(tst_cgroup_new_path, "mems",
> > >buf);
> > >lib/mem.c: write_cpuset_files(tst_cgroup_new_path, "mems", buf);
> > >lib/mem.c: write_cpuset_files(tst_cgroup_new_path, "cpus",
> > >cpus);
> > >lib/mem.c: write_cpuset_files(tst_cgroup_new_path, "cpus",
> > >"0");
> > >oom/oom04.c: write_cpuset_files(tst_cgroup_new_path,
> > >"memory_migrate", "1");
> > >oom/oom05.c: write_cpuset_files(tst_cgroup_new_path,
> > >"memory_migrate", "1");
> >
> > What if we provided access to it via API? Would we still need these
> > global variables?
> >
> > char *tst_cgroup_get_path(const char *cgroup_mnt)
> > // return ptr to tst_cgroup_paths->new_path
> >
>
> The series of list operating function are hiding in the library. My thought
> is
> to make the list transparent to users.
>
> In your method, we have to export the tst_cgroup_get_path() as an external
> function, it stills needs an extra local pointer in testcase to store the
> got new_path,
> it doesn't seem tidier too.
But there would be clear connection between function and variable.
new_path = tst_cgroup_get_path(cgroup_dir);
vs.
tst_cgroup_get_path(cgroup_dir);
// fyi, tst_cgroup_new_path is updated as side-effect of call above
// What other calls do update tst_cgroup_new_path? Have a look at implementation.
>
>
> > mount path is always known to test, because it passes it to
> > tst_cgroup_mount(),
> > so it just needs to find out "new path".
> >
> > Would that satisfy the need of this legacy test?
>
>
> How about moving the cpuset legacy code to the library as part of APIs?
> That'd
> help to capsulate all the operation of cgroup control in lib, and people
> just need
> to invoke the related function as what he/she wants.
>
> +void tst_cgroup_cpuset_read_files(const char *cgroup_dir, const char
> *filename, char *buf);
> +void tst_cgroup_cpuset_write_files(const char *cgroup_dir, const char
> *filename, const char *buf);
>
> Then 'tst_cgroup_new_path' searching work will all located internally. And
> 'tst_cgroup_ctl_knob' can
> be local variable too.
>
> Any other comments? (attach the v3.1)
That makes it somewhat better, since it's only concern of library code now.
But since there are no tests using "tst_cgroup_new_path", does it still
need to be global variable?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-08 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-01 10:04 [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/4] lib: add new cgroup test API Li Wang
2020-06-01 10:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/4] mem: take use of new cgroup API Li Wang
2020-06-01 10:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 3/4] mem: remove the old " Li Wang
2020-06-01 10:04 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 4/4] mm: add cpuset01 to runtest file Li Wang
2020-06-01 10:58 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/4] lib: add new cgroup test API Li Wang
2020-06-01 13:57 ` Jan Stancek
2020-06-02 4:42 ` Li Wang
2020-06-02 12:12 ` Jan Stancek
2020-06-03 1:38 ` Li Wang
2020-06-03 10:43 ` Jan Stancek
2020-06-03 12:51 ` Li Wang
2020-06-05 10:14 ` Jan Stancek
2020-06-08 8:53 ` Li Wang
2020-06-08 9:48 ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2020-06-08 10:18 ` Li Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=595558785.15122565.1591609722778.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
--to=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.