Re: [PATCH 13/14] selftests/sched_ext: Add test for sched_ext dl_server

[Andrea Righi]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 03:55:52PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 02:26:17PM +0100, Christian Loehle wrote:
> > On 10/17/25 10:26, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > Add a selftest to validate the correct behavior of the deadline server
> > > for the ext_sched_class.
> > > 
> > > [ Joel: Replaced occurences of CFS in the test with EXT. ]
> > > 
> > > Co-developed-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/Makefile    |   1 +
> > >  .../selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.bpf.c        |  23 ++
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.c  | 214 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 238 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.bpf.c
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/sched_ext/rt_stall.c
> > 
> > 
> > Does this pass consistently for you?
> > For a loop of 1000 runs I'm getting total runtime numbers for the EXT task of:
> > 
> >    0.000 -    0.261 |  (7)
> >    0.261 -    0.522 | ###### (86)
> >    0.522 -    4.437 |  (0)
> >    4.437 -    4.698 |  (1)
> >    4.698 -    4.959 | ################### (257)
> >    4.959 -    5.220 | ################################################## (649)
> > 
> > I'll try to see what's going wrong here...
> 
> Is that 1000 runs of total_bw? Yeah, the small ones don't look right at

s/total_bw/rt_stall/

-Andrea

> all, unless they're caused by some errors in the measurement (or something
> wrong in the test itself). Still better than without the dl_server, but
> it'd be nice to understand what's going on. :)
> 
> I'll try to reproduce that on my side as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Andrea