sysconf patch looks ok to me, but, I've never worked with sysconf myself, so,
although the patch looks good for me, I'd prefer Dave to take a deeper look on
it and see if he spot any problem here.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:23:52AM +0400, Stanislav Kholmanskikh wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 01:23 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >[ insert comment about not top-posting on mainling lists ]
> >On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:18:01AM -0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> >>>Actually, I'd say we shoul default to 1 cpu if we can't get the
> >>>number of CPUs. Clearly we have at least one if we can run this
> >>>code. :)
> >>I'm not sure about setting the default to 1 cpu might me a good behavior. My
> >>apologies if I'm saying something wrong, but, if the 'tester' are trying to
> >>some test trusting on the amount of cpus, it might not be a good behavior.
> >>I was thinking, how about issue an error message if xfstests can't properly
> >>detect the amount of cpus from the system, and add any kind of usage option
> >>specify the numbers of cpus? So in case of a error while detecting the
> >>amount of
> >I'd much prefer the test runs with a single CPU as a default rather
> >than not run at all. Most systems the tests run on support these
> >sysconf parameters, so it's going to do what we expect, but quite
> >frankly most tests shoul dnot need to know the number of CPUs.
> >This one is probably misguided, anyway, in what it's doing - if we
> >want to scale the load the test generates, then that's what
> >$LOAD_FACTOR is for. Also, it' multiplies the number of CPUs by 50,
> >then caps the result at 200, so in reality it's only scaling for up
> >to 4 CPUs which doesn't really take into account the range of
> >machines that we test on.
> Carlos, Dave, so what is the final resolution regarding my patch?
> Thank you.
> xfs mailing list