Hi Michal, On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:59:15AM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote: > On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 03:49:58PM +0900, Shashank Balaji > <shashank.mahadas...@sony.com> wrote: > > > 1. We don't need to separately check user_usec because it'll always be > > > less than user_usec^W usage_usec, and usage_usec is what's directly > > > affected by throttling. > > When kernel is not preemptible, I'd expect the system time may more > easily excess the quota, so I considered the user_usage check less prone > to false results. But... > > > > 2. I changed the >= to > because, not that it'll ever happen, but we can > > > let usage_usec = expected_usage_usec pass. Afterall, it's called > > > "expected" for a reason. > > > > Hmm, here is something interesting. The following patch adds printfs to the > > existing code to see what user_usec, usage_usec, the expected_usage_usec > > used in > > the code, and the theoretical expected_usage_usec are. On running the > > modified test > > a couple of times, here is the output: > > ...thanks for checking. I was misled by the previous test implementation > (the expected_usage_usec had no relation to actual throttled usage in > there). What you observe is thus likely explained by the default > sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice (5 times the tested quota) and CONFIG_HZ. > > So I'd say keep only the two-sided tolerant check. (I want to avoid the > test to randomly fail when there's no gaping issue.)
Yep, patch v2 is doing just that. So, I assume I have your Acked-by? Thanks Shashank
