Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 19:02:54 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Cc:     "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        "andrew.jones@linux.dev" <andrew.jones@linux.dev>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] dirty_log_perf_test vCPU pinning
Message-ID: <Y0myXiIjlT8pYyr8@google.com>
References: <20221010220538.1154054-1-vipinsh@google.com>
 <DS0PR11MB63735576A8FBF80738FF9B76DC249@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y0mPqNRSgpArgyS8@google.com>
 <CALzav=dU2-3avKGT2-AxO8d_uVH9bmYaO=ym8pPFM8esuSWP=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHVum0d2Jfr=WVxKxvnmwGKzPfV3vN5dbz11=rdcW6qoSoobew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHVum0d2Jfr=WVxKxvnmwGKzPfV3vN5dbz11=rdcW6qoSoobew@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:55 AM David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:34 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > > > Just curious why not re-using the existing tools (e.g. taskset) to do the pinning?
> > >
> > > IIUC, you're suggesting the test give tasks meaningful names so that the user can
> > > do taskset on the appropriate tasks?  The goal is to ensure vCPUs are pinned before
> > > they do any meaningful work.  I don't see how that can be accomplished with taskset
> > > without some form of hook in the test to effectively pause the test until the user
> > > (or some run script) is ready to continue.
> >
> > A taskset approach would also be more difficult to incorporate into
> > automated runs of dirty_log_perf_test.
> >
> > >
> > > Pinning aside, naming the threads is a great idea!  That would definitely help
> > > debug, e.g. if one vCPU gets stuck or is lagging behind.
> >
> > +1
> 
> I also like the idea.
> 
> Sean:
> Do you want a v6 with the naming patch or you will be fine taking v5,
> if there are no changes needed in v5, and I can send a separate patch
> for naming?

Definitely separate, this is an orthogonal change and I don't think there will be
any conflict.  If there is a conflict, it will be trivial to resolve.  But since
Wei provided a more or less complete patch, let's let Wei post a formal patch
(unless he doesn't want to).