On 05/08/2020 09:40, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> From: Willem de Bruijn <will...@google.com>
>
> The msg_zerocopy test pins the sender and receiver threads to separate
> cores to reduce variance between runs.
>
> But it hardcodes the cores and skips core 0, so it fails on machines
> with the selected cores offline, or simply fewer cores.
>
> The test mainly gives code coverage in automated runs. The throughput
> of zerocopy ('-z') and non-zerocopy runs is logged for manual
> inspection.
>
> Continue even when sched_setaffinity fails. Just log to warn anyone
> interpreting the data.
>
> Fixes: 07b65c5b31ce ("test: add msg_zerocopy test")
> Reported-by: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com>
> Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <will...@google.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c
> index 4b02933cab8a..bdc03a2097e8 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c
> @@ -125,9 +125,8 @@ static int do_setcpu(int cpu)
> CPU_ZERO(&mask);
> CPU_SET(cpu, &mask);
> if (sched_setaffinity(0, sizeof(mask), &mask))
> - error(1, 0, "setaffinity %d", cpu);
> -
> - if (cfg_verbose)
> + fprintf(stderr, "cpu: unable to pin, may increase variance.\n");
> + else if (cfg_verbose)
> fprintf(stderr, "cpu: %u\n", cpu);
>
> return 0;
>
Thanks, you solution is good for my testing requirements
Acked-by: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com>
