Re: [PATCH v3] selftests/cgroup: Adjust cpu test duration based on HZ

From: Joe Simmons-Talbott

Date: Thu Jun 25 2026 - 08:49:11 EST


On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:23:22AM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 12:03:57PM -0400, Joe Simmons-Talbott <joest@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Best effort attempt to get the kernel's HZ value from the config.
> > + * Return the HZ value if found otherwise return -1 to indicate failure.
> > + */
> > +static long
> > +_get_config_hz(void)
>
> drop underscore from the static function
>
> > +{
> > + long hz = -1;
>
> use the default 1000 here to simplify the callers
>
> > + FILE *f;
> > + char cmd[256] = "zcat /proc/config.gz 2>/dev/null | grep '^CONFIG_HZ='";
> > +
> > + f = popen(cmd, "r");
> > +
> > + if (!f)
> > + return hz;
> > +
> > + if (fscanf(f, "CONFIG_HZ=%ld", &hz) == EOF)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > +out:
> > + pclose(f);
> > + return hz;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * This test creates a cgroup with some maximum value within a period, and
> > * verifies that a process in the cgroup is not overscheduled.
> > @@ -646,15 +670,21 @@ test_cpucg_nested_weight_underprovisioned(const char *root)
> > static int test_cpucg_max(const char *root)
> > {
> > int ret = KSFT_FAIL;
> > + long hz = _get_config_hz();
> > long quota_usec = 1000;
> > long default_period_usec = 100000; /* cpu.max's default period */
> > - long duration_seconds = 1;
> > + long duration_seconds;
> >
> > - long duration_usec = duration_seconds * USEC_PER_SEC;
> > + long duration_usec;
> > long usage_usec, n_periods, remainder_usec, expected_usage_usec;
> > char *cpucg;
> > char quota_buf[32];
> >
> > + if (hz == -1)
> > + hz = 1000;
> > + duration_seconds = 1000 / hz;
> > + duration_usec = duration_seconds * USEC_PER_SEC;
>
> I'd do the calculation in usecs
>
> duration_usec = duration_seconds * USEC_PER_SEC * 1000 / hz;
>
> so that actual duration is more precise (for hz=300 which is the only
> that doesn't divide 1000)
>
> All in all, make the adjustments for HZ with less code (since I expect
> this will need adjustments for SMPs in future).

Hi Michal,

Thanks for your feedback. I'll make the changes you have suggested in v4.

Thanks,
Joe