From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4547C3C141F for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 22:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782252505; cv=none; b=UkHwJiJaz2HVIopxPiHvIsa0cnJE8EyupmAVF0DrPMbJwX2WK1GfjgQidd4lfwBbDaA6GXs+q1phWgrQQ+qRyl0gDssRrnnrwXA3oSmGqJEPWUDZnwsM5hneByyfQbS9p2gJEExRqM1PgB6YOgS6o9pL/P3x3NvqZ1JytGaJPaI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782252505; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5mkXlvSST2CP51KbfVCKM5YshcKotMcpEaCmZ5DtGMk=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=dX9rM3bR0Luc8jAd0OukSyFy4En/R2Gxin2oSbmqtJSbW0E6UkVyO0LpQQHCY8ZQ9KpN/SwtDsJrkYNQdZ4rsU40XRMMgg6j/gZSLTxas1tEearCPU6Qy5qgHDhC/WXpQQHR+HwPOOMz01jRAqNh+gU3CB0VMMMtrgX58tYLOIc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Ny3JsrA9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Ny3JsrA9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AED421F000E9; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 22:08:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1782252503; bh=fqKtojJZ8znNjPwSDPkufAlIGcF7RdnEFNW0ch3SrMw=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=Ny3JsrA9tenOot+eRSmBK5a0MLb817SdWPAcp2djcSst1jjChJU2Mke7r6z90PpEG jcbFvQnRHf3YLROvZCRU8fOna+NkB7Zz3xHS/JBrMt9/EDtTYzGtmrfytm9Q4hESxB vMdy955AX9Xu+XPpvuZToaPUqnObJAEmbN3HBwGYUOXLE6o0y/3N6LJvO0s3tuApea 0WeWbhfZnlT7zPeJLHVP3lOp/Ohzdq8o5cK3fRZ9cPMD4UfqtN1nF4mzE6y5bNl8qv WlZfvf/sWYTsOfVTt4gL1LbPL4KKa2VvdwAVrqDTPC98+ud/m9k0SvUOMl7raBTWFd 3QJAM0BDCRDCQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] perf tests: Speed up off-cpu profiling tests Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Ian Rogers" Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260623012758.2291858-11-irogers@google.com> References: <20260616164819.370939-1-irogers@google.com> <20260623012758.2291858-1-irogers@google.com> <20260623012758.2291858-11-irogers@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2026 22:08:23 +0000 Message-Id: <20260623220823.AED421F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The commit message inaccurately states the new total test sleep = overhead is 0.3s (yielding a ~2.7s speedup), but the actual new sleep overh= ead is 0.5s due to `test_offcpu_basic` using `sleep 0.3`. Additionally, the= commit silently lowers `--percent-limit` from 90 to 70 without documentati= on. -- commit 9b1dfc522cff7ce2083aaf529f3e6b60de599b14 Author: Ian Rogers perf tests: Speed up off-cpu profiling tests The commit scales down the off-cpu threshold tests to reduce test sleep overhead from 3.0s down to a stated 0.3s. > This reduces raw test sleep overhead from 3.0s down to 0.3s, yielding a > ~2.7 second speedup for this test. [Severity: Medium] Does this commit message accurately reflect the new total sleep overhead? Looking at the test script changes, test_offcpu_basic() uses sleep 0.3, whi= le test_offcpu_above_thresh() and test_offcpu_below_thresh() each use sleep 0.= 1. This adds up to 0.5s of total sleep overhead, rather than the 0.3s mentioned here. > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record_offcpu.sh b/tools/perf/tests/s= hell/record_offcpu.sh > index 860a2d6f4b75f..ee095df47358b 100755 > --- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record_offcpu.sh > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record_offcpu.sh > @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ test_offcpu_basic() { > err=3D1 > return > fi > - if ! perf report -i ${perfdata} -q --percent-limit=3D90 | grep -E -q s= leep > + if ! perf report -i ${perfdata} -q --percent-limit=3D70 | grep -E -q s= leep > then > echo "Basic off-cpu test [Failed missing output]" > err=3D1 [Severity: Medium] Was it intentional to lower the percent-limit from 90 to 70? This modifies the test logic for test_offcpu_basic(), but the change doesn't appear to be documented in the commit message. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260623012758.2291= 858-1-irogers@google.com?part=3D10