public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v3 7/7] fzsync: Check processor affinity
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 10:50:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tuof3hxm.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEemH2dgC4qTYMTXfvf7vKXJKG539BgvhM1-V4u0q8JDvmeKXA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Li,

Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com> writes:

>  static void tst_fzsync_pair_init(struct tst_fzsync_pair *pair)
>>  {
>> +       long ncpus = tst_ncpus_available();
>> +
>>         CHK(avg_alpha, 0, 1, 0.25);
>>         CHK(min_samples, 20, INT_MAX, 1024);
>>         CHK(max_dev_ratio, 0, 1, 0.1);
>>         CHK(exec_time_p, 0, 1, 0.5);
>>         CHK(exec_loops, 20, INT_MAX, 3000000);
>> -       CHK(yield_in_wait, 0, 1, (tst_ncpus() <= 1));
>> +
>> +       if (ncpus <= 1)
>> +               pair->yield_in_wait = 1;
>>
>
> I'm wondering here why not using the CHK macro as before but additionally
> involved a variable 'ncpus'.
>
> Isn't that CHK(yield_in_wait, 0, 1, (tst_ncpus_available() <= 1)) better?

The macro generates compiler warnings because yield_in_wait is bool and
so it is always inside the valid range unless (ncpus <= 1).

However I should remove the useless variable.

-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

      reply	other threads:[~2021-04-09  9:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-19  9:18 [LTP] [PATCH v3 0/7] Fuzzy Sync single core support and tests Richard Palethorpe
2021-03-19  9:18 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/7] fzsync: Add self tests Richard Palethorpe
2021-04-08 15:13   ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-04-09  9:34     ` Richard Palethorpe
2021-04-12 13:57   ` Li Wang
2021-04-13  6:42     ` Richard Palethorpe
2021-03-19  9:18 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 2/7] fzsync: Reset delay bias Richard Palethorpe
2021-04-07 15:38   ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-03-19  9:18 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 3/7] fzsync: Correctly print positive lower delay range bound Richard Palethorpe
2021-04-07 15:40   ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-03-19  9:18 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 4/7] fzsync: Add sched_yield for single core machine Richard Palethorpe
2021-03-19  9:18 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 5/7] fzsync: Move yield check out of loop and add yield to delay Richard Palethorpe
2021-04-08 12:45   ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-03-19  9:18 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 6/7] API: Add tst_ncpus_available Richard Palethorpe
2021-04-07 15:39   ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-03-19  9:18 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 7/7] fzsync: Check processor affinity Richard Palethorpe
2021-04-08 12:47   ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-04-09  7:18   ` Li Wang
2021-04-09  9:50     ` Richard Palethorpe [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=87tuof3hxm.fsf@suse.de \
    --to=rpalethorpe@suse.de \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox