From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Shashank Balaji <shashank.mahadasyam@sony.com>
Cc: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Shinya Takumi" <shinya.takumi@sony.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/cgroup: fix cpu.max tests
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:12:44 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aHk9HHA2vMEGBiI4@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250704110843.1022518-1-shashank.mahadasyam@sony.com>
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 08:08:41PM +0900, Shashank Balaji wrote:
> Current cpu.max tests (both the normal one and the nested one) are broken.
>
> They setup cpu.max with 1000 us quota and the default period (100,000 us).
> A cpu hog is run for a duration of 1s as per wall clock time. This corresponds
> to 10 periods, hence an expected usage of 10,000 us. We want the measured
> usage (as per cpu.stat) to be close to 10,000 us.
>
> Previously, this approximate equality test was done by
> `!values_close(usage_usec, expected_usage_usec, 95)`: if the absolute
> difference between usage_usec and expected_usage_usec is greater than 95% of
> their sum, then we pass. And expected_usage_usec was set to 1,000,000 us.
> Mathematically, this translates to the following being true for pass:
>
> |usage - expected_usage| > (usage + expected_usage)*0.95
>
> If usage > expected_usage:
> usage - expected_usage > (usage + expected_usage)*0.95
> 0.05*usage > 1.95*expected_usage
> usage > 39*expected_usage = 39s
>
> If usage < expected_usage:
> expected_usage - usage > (usage + expected_usage)*0.95
> 0.05*expected_usage > 1.95*usage
> usage < 0.0256*expected_usage = 25,600 us
>
> Combined,
>
> Pass if usage < 25,600 us or > 39 s,
>
> which makes no sense given that all we need is for usage_usec to be close to
> 10,000 us.
>
> Fix this by explicitly calcuating the expected usage duration based on the
> configured quota, default period, and the duration, and compare usage_usec
> and expected_usage_usec using values_close() with a 10% error margin.
>
> Also, use snprintf to get the quota string to write to cpu.max instead of
> hardcoding the quota, ensuring a single source of truth.
>
> Remove the check comparing user_usec and expected_usage_usec, since on running
> this test modified with printfs, it's seen that user_usec and usage_usec can
> regularly exceed the theoretical expected_usage_usec:
>
> $ sudo ./test_cpu
> user: 10485, usage: 10485, expected: 10000
> ok 1 test_cpucg_max
> user: 11127, usage: 11127, expected: 10000
> ok 2 test_cpucg_max_nested
> $ sudo ./test_cpu
> user: 10286, usage: 10286, expected: 10000
> ok 1 test_cpucg_max
> user: 10404, usage: 11271, expected: 10000
> ok 2 test_cpucg_max_nested
>
> Hence, a values_close() check of usage_usec and expected_usage_usec is
> sufficient.
>
> Fixes: a79906570f9646ae17 ("cgroup: Add test_cpucg_max_nested() testcase")
> Fixes: 889ab8113ef1386c57 ("cgroup: Add test_cpucg_max() testcase")
> Acked-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shashank Balaji <shashank.mahadasyam@sony.com>
Applied to cgroup/for-6.17.
Thanks.
--
tejun
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-17 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-01 14:13 [PATCH 0/2] selftests/cgroup: better bound for cpu.max tests Shashank Balaji
2025-07-01 14:13 ` [PATCH 1/2] selftests/cgroup: rename `expected` to `duration` in " Shashank Balaji
2025-07-01 14:13 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/cgroup: better bound " Shashank Balaji
2025-07-02 12:34 ` [PATCH 0/2] selftests/cgroup: better bound for " Michal Koutný
2025-07-03 1:41 ` Shashank Balaji
2025-07-03 8:54 ` Michal Koutný
2025-07-03 12:03 ` [PATCH v2] selftests/cgroup: improve the accuracy of " Shashank Balaji
2025-07-03 15:58 ` Michal Koutný
2025-07-04 0:26 ` Shashank Balaji
2025-07-04 6:49 ` Shashank Balaji
2025-07-04 8:59 ` Michal Koutný
2025-07-04 9:07 ` Shashank Balaji
2025-07-04 9:15 ` Shashank Balaji
2025-07-04 9:41 ` Michal Koutný
2025-07-04 11:08 ` [PATCH v3] selftests/cgroup: fix " Shashank Balaji
2025-07-11 0:21 ` Shashank Balaji
2025-07-17 18:12 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
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=aHk9HHA2vMEGBiI4@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=shashank.mahadasyam@sony.com \
--cc=shinya.takumi@sony.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).