Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 12:25:18 +0200 (EET)
From:   =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
cc:     =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Maciej_Wiecz=F3r-Retman?= 
        <maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 23/29] selftests/resctrl: Restore the CPU affinity
 after CAT test
In-Reply-To: <04650d92-fb80-49e2-87b7-4f9dbec922b8@intel.com>
Message-ID: <f4a42eb0-9379-74d-e765-fe37a8aa12d@linux.intel.com>
References: <20231211121826.14392-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> <20231211121826.14392-24-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> <04650d92-fb80-49e2-87b7-4f9dbec922b8@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-866747641-1702549522=:5690"
Precedence: bulk

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-866747641-1702549522=:5690
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 12/11/2023 4:18 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > CAT test does not reset the CPU affinity after the benchmark.
> > This is relatively harmless as is because CAT test is the last
> > benchmark to run, however, more tests may be added later.
> > 
> > Store the CPU affinity the first time taskset_benchmark() is run and
> > add taskset_restore() which the test can call to reset the CPU mask to
> > its original value.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> > ---

> > +/*
> > + * taskset_restore - Taskset PID to the earlier CPU affinity
> > + * @bm_pid:		PID that should be reset
> > + * @old_affinity:	The old CPU affinity to restore
> > + *
> > + * Return: 0 on success, < 0 on error.
> > + */
> > +int taskset_restore(pid_t bm_pid, cpu_set_t *old_affinity)
> > +{
> > +	if (sched_setaffinity(bm_pid, sizeof(*old_affinity), old_affinity)) {
> > +		ksft_perror("Unable to restore taskset");
> 
> This message is not clear to me. How about "Unable to restore CPU affinity"?

Okay, I can change that. I actually was on the edge what to with these 
because I was just trying to be consistent with the existing error message 
in taskset_benchmark(). I reasoned that because "taskset" is the userspace 
tool which the user might be familiar the original idea of using 
"taskset" might be helpful.

And now rereading what I wrote in that message, "restore taskset" does not 
sound very sensical grammarwise. :-)

-- 
 i.

--8323329-866747641-1702549522=:5690--