Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:21:18 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
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: <YmHY3t9UC2/zDyMz@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20220419213244.2104972-1-void@manifault.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220419213244.2104972-1-void@manifault.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 02:32:40PM -0700, David Vernet wrote:
> This patchset introduces a new test_cpu.c test suite as part of
> tools/testing/selftests/cgroup. test_cpu.c will contain testcases that
> validate the cgroup v2 cpu controller.
> 
> This patchset only contains testcases that validate cpu.stat and
> cpu.weight, but I'm expecting to send further patchsets after this that
> also include testcases that validate other knobs such as cpu.max.
> 
> Note that checkpatch complains about a missing MAINTAINERS file entry for
> [PATCH 1/4], but Roman Gushchin added that entry in a separate patchset:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220415000133.3955987-4-roman.gushchin@linux.dev/.

This looks great to me. A few small things:

* Can you please repost w/ Ingo and Peterz cc'd?

* Maybe cpucg instead of cgcpu?

* 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.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun