Skip to content

Conversation

@theihor
Copy link
Contributor

@theihor theihor commented Oct 24, 2024

No description provided.

@theihor theihor force-pushed the run-scx branch 2 times, most recently from be26ac2 to a68f941 Compare October 24, 2024 23:16
@theihor theihor requested a review from chantra November 7, 2024 18:54
@theihor theihor marked this pull request as ready for review November 7, 2024 18:54
@theihor
Copy link
Contributor Author

theihor commented Nov 7, 2024

@chantra I think we can merge this in

When we are ready to enable scx test runs, we'll just need to uncomment this line.

And in kernel-patches/vmtest we'll have to add "sched_ext" as a value when building the matrix.

theihor added a commit to theihor/vmtest that referenced this pull request Nov 7, 2024
Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@pm.me>
theihor added a commit to theihor/vmtest that referenced this pull request Nov 7, 2024
Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@pm.me>
Comment on lines -49 to -50
# HACK: We need to unmount /tmp to access /tmp from the container....
vmtest -k "${VMLINUZ}" --kargs "panic=-1 sysctl.vm.panic_on_oom=1" "umount /tmp && \
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was surprised to see this.... but we essentially do not need to umount /tmp since danobi/vmtest@0a63dce

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah. I actually had to remove it, otherwise it failed to umount.

Copy link
Collaborator

@chantra chantra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. I wonder if another diff on top would be worthwhile to uniformize how we discover which VMTEST_SCRIPT to use.

- {"name": "gcc", "fullname": "gcc", "version": 17}
- {"name": "llvm", "fullname": "llvm-17", "version": 17}
tests: [{"include": [{"test": "test_progs", "continue_on_error": false, "timeout_minutes": 360}, {"test": "test_progs_no_alu32", "continue_on_error": false, "timeout_minutes": 360}, {"test": "test_verifier", "continue_on_error": false, "timeout_minutes": 360}, {"test": "test_maps", "continue_on_error": false, "timeout_minutes": 360}]}]
tests:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice!

trap 'exit 2' ERR

source $(cd $(dirname $0) && pwd)/../helpers.sh
source "${GITHUB_ACTION_PATH}/../helpers.sh"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why the change from $(cd $(dirname $0) && pwd) to ${GITHUB_ACTION_PATH}?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@theihor theihor Nov 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've been trying to use common env vars for paths everywhere, and $GITHUB_ACTION_PATH makes most sense for actions, when you're looking for relative paths.

However, in this case I don't think important, so I don't mind leaving pwd.

Any particular reasons in favor of $(cd $(dirname $0) && pwd)?

@theihor
Copy link
Contributor Author

theihor commented Nov 15, 2024

LGTM. I wonder if another diff on top would be worthwhile to uniformize how we discover which VMTEST_SCRIPT to use.

Thanks.

There are more changes to it in #150, and follow ups are very likely. Initially I thought to pass VMTEST_SCRIPT as an action input, and then changed my mind (don't remember why). Maybe we'll do that eventually.

@theihor theihor merged commit 48588a1 into libbpf:main Nov 15, 2024
theihor added a commit to theihor/vmtest that referenced this pull request Nov 15, 2024
Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@pm.me>
theihor added a commit to kernel-patches/vmtest that referenced this pull request Nov 15, 2024
Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@pm.me>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants