This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Do not scale NPTL tests with available number of CPUs
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:32:39 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not scale NPTL tests with available number of CPUs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=fweimer at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com BBA64C0587E8
- References: <20170830124448.87C7741BE92E8@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAKCAbMjwxLqr4xi=gncTNDJRUvke+nNwUzhMzTiQ6NKyahzgWA@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/30/2017 04:21 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Adhemerval Zanella
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 30/08/2017 09:44, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On very large multi-processor systems, creating hundreds of threads
>>> runs into a test time out. The tests do not seem to benefit from
>>> massive over-scheduling.
>>> 2017-08-30 Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> Do not scale NPTL tests with available number of CPUs.
>>> * nptl/tst-cond16.c (count): Sett to constant value of 8.
> This verb is spelled "set" in English, not "sett".
I fixed that before committing.
> Should it maybe be min(8, ncpus) instead of just 8?
I don't think that's worth the added complexity. Even on a UP system,
the overscheduling does not introduce a significant delay in thread
creation and termination.
$ time taskset 1 bash testrun.sh nptl/tst-cond16