Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 05:32:27 -0700
From:   David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cgroup: Introduce cpu controller test suite
Message-ID: <20220422123227.gtirbsygpjek3iss@dev0025.ash9.facebook.com>
References: <20220419213244.2104972-1-void@manifault.com>
 <YmHY3t9UC2/zDyMz@slm.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YmHY3t9UC2/zDyMz@slm.duckdns.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20211029
Precedence: bulk

Hi Tejun,

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:21:18PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> * Can you please repost w/ Ingo and Peterz cc'd?

Will do, I'll cc them on v2.

> * Maybe cpucg instead of cgcpu?

Agreed, that seems more intuitive. I'll change it in v2.

> * Single level testing is great but extending the case to cover deeper
>   nesting level would be great. ie. a test case with multi level tree w/
>   both under and over provisioned parts in the tree.

This sounds like a great idea. I have another patch set that I was planning
to send out which adds a few more testcases. I can include some testcases
in that set which validate more complicated nesting setups.

Thanks,
David