OCPBUGS-57520: e2e: llc: initial tests for cpu allocation #1308

ffromani · 2025-03-11T13:38:03Z

bootstrap the tests which actually run pods and check the CPU (and thus the L3/LLC) allocation.

Start with the trivial sanity tests, adding a good chunk of required infra utilities along the way.

ffromani · 2025-03-11T13:38:23Z

/hold

still tuning the tests

ffromani · 2025-03-18T09:40:58Z

/retest

mrniranjan · 2025-04-01T10:30:51Z

@ffromani i ran the tests on my system and i got this error:

  [FAILED] Unexpected error:
      <*json.UnmarshalTypeError | 0xc00061c230>: 
      json: cannot unmarshal string into Go struct field Info.topology.architecture of type topology.Architecture
      {
          Value: "string",
          Type: <*reflect.rtype | 0x1a4b7e0>{
              t: {Size_: 0x8, PtrBytes: 0x0, Hash: 3381447132, TFlag: 15, Align_: 8, FieldAlign_: 8, Kind_: 2, Equal: 0x408c60, GCData: 0, Str: 235607, PtrToThis: 1884672},
          },
          Offset: 25432,
          Struct: "Info",
          Field: "topology.architecture",
      }
  occurred

From the machineinfo json of my system , i see that topology.Architecture is "numa" string

test/e2e/performanceprofile/functests/13_llc/llc.go

ffromani · 2025-04-07T14:43:48Z

@ffromani i ran the tests on my system and i got this error:

  [FAILED] Unexpected error:
      <*json.UnmarshalTypeError | 0xc00061c230>: 
      json: cannot unmarshal string into Go struct field Info.topology.architecture of type topology.Architecture
      {
          Value: "string",
          Type: <*reflect.rtype | 0x1a4b7e0>{
              t: {Size_: 0x8, PtrBytes: 0x0, Hash: 3381447132, TFlag: 15, Align_: 8, FieldAlign_: 8, Kind_: 2, Equal: 0x408c60, GCData: 0, Str: 235607, PtrToThis: 1884672},
          },
          Offset: 25432,
          Struct: "Info",
          Field: "topology.architecture",
      }
  occurred

From the machineinfo json of my system , i see that topology.Architecture is "numa" string

how did you run? I can't recall a similar error

ffromani · 2025-04-08T08:05:49Z

/retest

ffromani · 2025-04-08T08:11:19Z

@ffromani i ran the tests on my system and i got this error:

  [FAILED] Unexpected error:
      <*json.UnmarshalTypeError | 0xc00061c230>: 
      json: cannot unmarshal string into Go struct field Info.topology.architecture of type topology.Architecture
      {
          Value: "string",
          Type: <*reflect.rtype | 0x1a4b7e0>{
              t: {Size_: 0x8, PtrBytes: 0x0, Hash: 3381447132, TFlag: 15, Align_: 8, FieldAlign_: 8, Kind_: 2, Equal: 0x408c60, GCData: 0, Str: 235607, PtrToThis: 1884672},
          },
          Offset: 25432,
          Struct: "Info",
          Field: "topology.architecture",
      }
  occurred

From the machineinfo json of my system , i see that topology.Architecture is "numa" string

how did you run? I can't recall a similar error

also, the current tests are a working demo about how to fetch and consume machineinfo JSON data

mrniranjan · 2025-04-09T09:29:03Z

@ffromani i ran the tests on my system and i got this error:
  [FAILED] Unexpected error:
      <*json.UnmarshalTypeError | 0xc00061c230>: 
      json: cannot unmarshal string into Go struct field Info.topology.architecture of type topology.Architecture
      {
          Value: "string",
          Type: <*reflect.rtype | 0x1a4b7e0>{
              t: {Size_: 0x8, PtrBytes: 0x0, Hash: 3381447132, TFlag: 15, Align_: 8, FieldAlign_: 8, Kind_: 2, Equal: 0x408c60, GCData: 0, Str: 235607, PtrToThis: 1884672},
          },
          Offset: 25432,
          Struct: "Info",
          Field: "topology.architecture",
      }
  occurred
From the machineinfo json of my system , i see that topology.Architecture is "numa" string
how did you run? I can't recall a similar error
also, the current tests are a working demo about how to fetch and consume machineinfo JSON data
i ran the tests as below:

export IMAGE_REGISTRY=quay.io/openshift-kni/
export CNF_TESTS_IMAGE=cnf-tests:latest
ginkgo  -v --require-suite 13_llc/

ffromani · 2025-04-09T10:26:51Z

we need to bump ghw to 0.9.0 at least (jaypipes/ghw#283). I recall some convos and some challenges to update though.

ffromani · 2025-04-09T10:36:03Z

we need to bump ghw to 0.9.0 at least (jaypipes/ghw#283). I recall some convos and some challenges to update though.

rebasing against the tip of the main branch (where we moved to ghw 0.15) should suffice

openshift-ci · 2025-04-09T10:36:27Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ffromani

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [ffromani]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

mrniranjan · 2025-04-10T11:42:51Z

@ffromani llc tests are failing in updating-profile lane because the cnf-tests image that it's using doesn't have machineinfo , currently only the latest cnf-tests image from quay has the required binaries

ffromani · 2025-04-11T14:40:55Z

/test okd-scos-e2e-aws-ovn

ffromani · 2025-04-11T14:41:01Z

/test e2e-aws-ovn-techpreview

test/e2e/performanceprofile/functests/13_llc/llc.go

mrniranjan · 2025-05-20T11:34:53Z

@ffromani can you add the test case id mentioned above and merge this.

bootstrap the tests which actually run pods and check the CPU (and thus the L3/LLC) allocation. Start with the trivial sanity tests, adding a good chunk of required infra utilities along the way. Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <[email protected]>

ffromani · 2025-06-10T13:49:58Z

/hold cancel

mrniranjan · 2025-06-17T12:46:13Z

@ffromani I have created OCPBUGS-57520 , so that we can backport this pr to 4.19 . Can you add this to the title, so that we can merge this.

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-06-17T12:56:13Z

@ffromani: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-57520, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.20.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.20.0)
bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @mrniranjan

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

bootstrap the tests which actually run pods and check the CPU (and thus the L3/LLC) allocation.

Start with the trivial sanity tests, adding a good chunk of required infra utilities along the way.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

ffromani · 2025-06-17T12:56:16Z

/jira refresh

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-06-17T12:56:22Z

@ffromani: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-57520, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

bug is open, matching expected state (open)
bug target version (4.20.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.20.0)
bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @mrniranjan

In response to this:

/jira refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

mrniranjan · 2025-06-18T08:41:04Z

/lgtm

openshift-ci · 2025-06-18T13:20:47Z

@ffromani: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-06-18T13:25:58Z

@ffromani: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-57520: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

openshift/cluster-node-tuning-operator#1308

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-57520 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

bootstrap the tests which actually run pods and check the CPU (and thus the L3/LLC) allocation.

Start with the trivial sanity tests, adding a good chunk of required infra utilities along the way.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

openshift-bot · 2025-06-18T17:38:45Z

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

Distgit: cluster-node-tuning-operator
This PR has been included in build cluster-node-tuning-operator-container-v4.20.0-202506181712.p0.g5d3e7a6.assembly.stream.el9.
All builds following this will include this PR.

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 11, 2025

mrniranjan reviewed Apr 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/performanceprofile/functests/13_llc/llc.go Show resolved Hide resolved

ffromani force-pushed the add-llc-e2e branch from 3c991be to 5c68af2 Compare April 9, 2025 10:35

openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 9, 2025

ffromani force-pushed the add-llc-e2e branch from 5c68af2 to 70cfaa3 Compare April 9, 2025 10:47

ffromani force-pushed the add-llc-e2e branch from 70cfaa3 to ae03972 Compare April 11, 2025 14:54

mrniranjan reviewed Apr 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/performanceprofile/functests/13_llc/llc.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mrniranjan reviewed Apr 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/e2e/performanceprofile/functests/13_llc/llc.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label May 20, 2025

ffromani force-pushed the add-llc-e2e branch from ae03972 to 500dcd6 Compare June 10, 2025 13:14

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jun 10, 2025

ffromani force-pushed the add-llc-e2e branch from 500dcd6 to c30fc00 Compare June 10, 2025 13:22

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jun 10, 2025

ffromani changed the title ~~e2e: llc: initial tests for cpu allocation~~ OCPBUGS-57520: e2e: llc: initial tests for cpu allocation Jun 17, 2025

openshift-ci bot requested a review from mrniranjan June 17, 2025 12:56

openshift-ci bot assigned mrniranjan Jun 18, 2025

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 18, 2025

openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 5d3e7a6 into openshift:main Jun 18, 2025
18 checks passed

ffromani deleted the add-llc-e2e branch June 18, 2025 13:40

OCPBUGS-57520: e2e: llc: initial tests for cpu allocation #1308

OCPBUGS-57520: e2e: llc: initial tests for cpu allocation #1308

Uh oh!

Conversation

ffromani commented Mar 11, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Mar 11, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Mar 18, 2025

Uh oh!

mrniranjan commented Apr 1, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Apr 7, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Apr 8, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Apr 8, 2025

Uh oh!

mrniranjan commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 9, 2025

Uh oh!

mrniranjan commented Apr 10, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Apr 11, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Apr 11, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mrniranjan commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Jun 10, 2025

Uh oh!

mrniranjan commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

ffromani commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

mrniranjan commented Jun 18, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Jun 18, 2025

Uh oh!

openshift-bot commented Jun 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!