Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] selftests/resctrl: resctrl_val() related cleanups & improvements

[Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>]

Hi Shuah and Ilpo,

On 4/24/2024 6:49 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 4/8/24 10:32, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This series does a number of cleanups into resctrl_val() and
>> generalizes it by removing test name specific handling from the
>> function.
>>
>> One of the changes improves MBA/MBM measurement by narrowing down the
>> period the resctrl FS derived memory bandwidth numbers are measured
>> over. My feel is it didn't cause noticeable difference into the numbers
>> because they're generally good anyway except for the small number of
>> outliers. To see the impact on outliers, I'd need to setup a test to
>> run large number of replications and do a statistical analysis, which
>> I've not spent my time on. Even without the statistical analysis, the
>> new way to measure seems obviously better and makes sense even if I
>> cannot see a major improvement with the setup I'm using.
>>
>> This series has some conflicts with SNC series from Maciej (Maciej has
>> privately agreed to base his series on top of this series) and also
>> with the MBA/MBM series from Babu.
>>
>> -- 
>>   i.
>>
>> v3:
>> - Rename init functions to <testname>_init()
>> - Replace for loops with READ+WRITE statements for clarity
>> - Don't drop Return: entry from perf_open_imc_mem_bw() func comment
>> - New patch: Fix closing of IMC fds in case of error
>> - New patch: Make "bandwidth" consistent in comments & prints
>> - New patch: Simplify mem bandwidth file code
>> - Remove wrong comment
>> - Changed grp_name check to return -1 on fail (internal sanity check)
>>
> 
> I can apply these for Linux 6.10-rc1 once I get an Ack from Reinette.
> 

Apologies for the delay in reviewing this. I've now provided feedback for
consideration.

Reinette