Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/3] test/power: fix a bug in cpufreq autotest

["Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>]

On 08-Apr-21 3:10 AM, Richael Zhuang wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for your comments.
> My change  is to make  the check_power_turbo()  to continue only when rte_power_turbo_status(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID) returns 1 which means turbo is available.

Sure, but the code reads like if the turbo status isn't available, then 
the code just treats it as "unsupported", where in reality it could've 
been supported, but failed for some other reason.

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 5:59 PM
> To: Richael Zhuang <Richael.Zhuang@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: lukaszx.krakowiak@intel.com; stable@dpdk.org; David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/3] test/power: fix a bug in cpufreq autotest
> 
> On 07-Apr-21 8:46 AM, Richael Zhuang wrote:
>> For platforms that don't support turbo boost,rte_power_turbo_status()
>> returns "-ENOTSUP" (like power_kvm_vm_turbo_status()). So don't allow
>> check_power_turbo() to continue if
>> rte_power_turbo_status(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID)!=1
>>
>> Fixes: aeaeaf5f2d62 ("test/power: add cases for turbo feature")
>> Cc: lukaszx.krakowiak@intel.com
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richael Zhuang <richael.zhuang@arm.com>
>> ---
>>    app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c
>> b/app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c index 1f4d8bb05..cda74bd8a 100644
>> --- a/app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c
>> @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ check_power_turbo(void)
>>    {
>>    int ret;
>>
>> -if (rte_power_turbo_status(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID) == 0) {
>> +if (rte_power_turbo_status(TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID) != 1) {
>>    printf("Turbo not available on lcore %u, skipping test\n",
>>    TEST_POWER_LCORE_ID);
>>    return 0;
>>
> 
> If what you're really checking is -ENOTSUP, maybe check for that?
> Because otherwise it seems like you're making unwarranted assumptions about why the call failed...
> 
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
> 


-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly