Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] dirty_log_perf_test vCPU pinning

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:55 AM David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:34 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> 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).