[v1,1/4] test/power: fix check for cpu frequency
Checks
Commit Message
Different drivers present the current cpu core frequency in different
sysfs iles. Some present it in cpuinfo_cur_freq, some in scaling_cur_freq,
and some actually present it in both.
This patch attempts to open one, if that fails, tries the other.
Fixes: d550a8cc31f3 ("app/test: enhance power manager unit tests")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>
---
app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Comments
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of David Hunt
> + TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
> return 0;
[Reshma]: Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.
> }
> f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
> if (f == NULL) {
> - return 0;
> + if (snprintf(fullpath, sizeof(fullpath),
> + TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_CPUINFO_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
> + return 0;
> + }
> + f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
> + if (f == NULL) {
> + return 0;
> + }
> }
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_LOOP; i++) {
> fflush(f);
> --
> 2.17.1
This patch series is stucked.
That's too often the case for the power lib/example/test patches.
29/04/2021 12:34, Pattan, Reshma:
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of David Hunt
> > +TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
>
> > return 0;
>
> [Reshma]: Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.
>
> > }
> > f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
> > if (f == NULL) {
> > -return 0;
> > +if (snprintf(fullpath, sizeof(fullpath),
> > +TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_CPUINFO_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
> > +return 0;
> > +}
> > +f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
> > +if (f == NULL) {
> > +return 0;
> > +}
> > }
On 29/4/2021 11:34 AM, Pattan, Reshma wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of David Hunt
>> +TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
>> return 0;
> [Reshma]: Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.
Hi Reshma,
We might do, but that's not something I had intended to address in this
patch set.
We should look at this in a future patch, OK?
Rgds,
Dave.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hunt, David <david.hunt@intel.com>
> > [Reshma]: Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.
>
>
> Hi Reshma,
>
> We might do, but that's not something I had intended to address in this patch
> set.
>
> We should look at this in a future patch, OK?
>
> Rgds,
>
> Dave.
>
>
Fine with me. Thanks for checking.
@@ -39,8 +39,10 @@ test_power_caps(void)
#define TEST_FREQ_ROUNDING_DELTA 50000
#define TEST_ROUND_FREQ_TO_N_100000 100000
-#define TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_CUR_FREQ \
+#define TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_CPUINFO_FREQ \
"/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu%u/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq"
+#define TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ \
+ "/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu%u/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq"
static uint32_t total_freq_num;
static uint32_t freqs[TEST_POWER_FREQS_NUM_MAX];
@@ -58,12 +60,19 @@ check_cur_freq(unsigned lcore_id, uint32_t idx)
int i;
if (snprintf(fullpath, sizeof(fullpath),
- TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_CUR_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
+ TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
return 0;
}
f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
if (f == NULL) {
- return 0;
+ if (snprintf(fullpath, sizeof(fullpath),
+ TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_CPUINFO_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
+ return 0;
+ }
+ f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
+ if (f == NULL) {
+ return 0;
+ }
}
for (i = 0; i < MAX_LOOP; i++) {
fflush(f);