From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172])
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C1E3203BE;
	Mon, 20 Oct 2025 14:21:32 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172
ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116;
	t=1760970094; cv=none; b=nrkVJnuC1e4WX8q4ZwVPiKbbaIQ3YJZRZ3noiCdD2BtiFg9OENlME9e7nlKf7OaIicQkNT1E+6+1LR/nw7tUT0KV7Jf12GaTc/EyZwmod7rPGNO0vbMBTBsudNufV6GecfDTNIAeGUlhR6CYY1A8Nc90rhHpEXGFh08olrkWATA=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1760970094; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=UhZSEiLMQAnrBHiYN63L6abCG20cM3adtIiWxnZ+pts=;
	h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:
	 In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=GRH+/TWOZiw5nyLocjkfjjvqjI1ZUoOX+0VrA6KF4UPzthgkX3pmqPA3H/jDcsQv1VNHhz7NtBdLgkBZfDGPClFMUsKAqSqw6J0y73tztunC2VO18PoZ2oq44UgbF45cBv6DsaijOYPObU+1TpkAFEAaRXpxT82LUg02cUI1/Ig=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])
	by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556521063;
	Mon, 20 Oct 2025 07:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.57.66.206] (unknown [10.57.66.206])
	by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 936DA3F63F;
	Mon, 20 Oct 2025 07:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <664c2c34-1514-421f-b3e4-3aec1139f8e3@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 15:21:26 +0100
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] selftests/sched_ext: Add test for sched_ext
 dl_server
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
 Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
 Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
 Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
 Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
 David Vernet <void@manifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, sched-ext@lists.linux.dev,
 bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20251017093214.70029-1-arighi@nvidia.com>
 <20251017093214.70029-14-arighi@nvidia.com>
 <67335454-6657-42d2-bf98-d1df1b58baa6@arm.com> <aPY_YHK-oWZp0KK1@gpd4>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <aPY_YHK-oWZp0KK1@gpd4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/20/25 14:55, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 02:26:17PM +0100, Christian Loehle wrote:
>> On 10/17/25 10:26, Andrea Righi wrote:
>>> Add a selftest to validate the correct behavior of the deadline server
>>> for the ext_sched_class.
>>>
>>> [ Joel: Replaced occurences of CFS in the test with EXT. ]
>>>
>>> Co-developed-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/Makefile    |   1 +
>>>  .../selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.bpf.c        |  23 ++
>>>  tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.c  | 214 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 238 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.bpf.c
>>>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.c
>>
>>
>> Does this pass consistently for you?
>> For a loop of 1000 runs I'm getting total runtime numbers for the EXT task of:
>>
>>    0.000 -    0.261 |  (7)
>>    0.261 -    0.522 | ###### (86)
>>    0.522 -    4.437 |  (0)
>>    4.437 -    4.698 |  (1)
>>    4.698 -    4.959 | ################### (257)
>>    4.959 -    5.220 | ################################################## (649)
>>
>> I'll try to see what's going wrong here...
> 
> Is that 1000 runs of total_bw? Yeah, the small ones don't look right at
> all, unless they're caused by some errors in the measurement (or something
> wrong in the test itself). Still better than without the dl_server, but
> it'd be nice to understand what's going on. :)
> 
> I'll try to reproduce that on my side as well.
> 

Yes it's pretty much
for i in $(seq 0 999); do ./runner -t rt_stall ; sleep 10; done

I also tried to increase the runtime of the test, but results look the same so I
assume the DL server isn't running in the fail cases.