On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 16:55, Brendan Jackman jackmanb@google.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 16:48, Dev Jain dev.jain@arm.com wrote:
On 20/02/25 8:33 pm, Brendan Jackman wrote:
This calculation divides a fixed parameter by an environment-dependent parameter i.e. the number of CPUs.
The simple way to avoid machine-specific failures here is to just put a cap on the max value of the latter.
I haven't read the test, but if nr_cpus is being computed, then this value must be important to the test somehow? Would it potentially be wrong to let the test run for nr_cpus != actual number of cpus?
Based on my _extremely hasty_ reading, the variable is misnamed and it's actually a thread count not a CPU count. I can double check that's the case and rename it.
Oh yeah actually, it's only misnamed because I made it misnamed. So this patch needs to rename it for sure, thanks for pointing it out.
(But yeah I upgraded my extremely hasty reading to an only hasty reading and I still don't think this test cares about the actual CPU topology).