e2e: Add housekeeping IRQ load balancing tests #1456
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: SargunNarula The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
test/e2e/performanceprofile/functests/1_performance/irqbalance.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| } | ||
|
|
||
| By("Deleting first pod and verifying remaining pods' configuration is unaffected") | ||
| deletedPodHousekeepingCPUs := podHousekeepingCPUs[0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
other than having this info for logging in the end, didn't you want to use this for verification?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Surely, I missed on the verification part. Resolved with latest commit.
|
@SargunNarula: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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. |
Added e2e tests for IRQ load balancing with housekeeping pods: - [86346] Verify single hyperthread allocation with full-pcpus-only=false - [86348] Verify IRQ config preserved after TuneD restart - [86347] Verify housekeeping with nosmt kernel argument Signed-off-by: Sargun Narula <snarula@redhat.com>
SargunNarula
force-pushed
the
irq_housekeeping_2
branch
from
ff2d905 to
bdafc69
Compare
|
|
||
| By("Verifying housekeeping CPUs equal the container's assigned CPU") | ||
| Expect(housekeepingCPUSet.Equals(containerCpuSet)).To(BeTrue(), | ||
| "Housekeeping CPUs %v should match container CPUs %v for single hyperthread allocation", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, this will pass, but only because the container itself has just one cpu available. The same should actually happen with 2 cpus when HT is enabled.
The edge case test is fine, but the description and logs do not accurately represent what is tested here. full-pcpus-only is actually not important for the logic, it just allows you to allocate a single cpu only when HT is enabled.
| }) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| Context("Verify TuneD restart preserves IRQ configuration for multiple housekeeping pods", Label(string(label.Tier2)), func() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe we have a similar test for non-housekeeping case, right? Would it make sense to coalesce the code into a single test with a parameter? To avoid code duplication.
| smtActive := strings.TrimSpace(testutils.ToString(smtOutput)) | ||
| Expect(smtActive).To(Equal("0"), "SMT should be disabled (smt/active should be 0)") | ||
|
|
||
| By("Creating a housekeeping pod with 1 CPU") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use more cpus, otherwise the test never uncovers anything even if the logic breaks.
3 participants
Added e2e tests for IRQ load balancing with housekeeping pods: