OCPBUGS-74027: AA: E2E: LLC: Add tests related to odd cpus by mrniranjan · Pull Request #1458 · openshift/cluster-node-tuning-operator

mrniranjan · 2026-01-17T07:04:23Z

Adds tests related to Odd integer cpu alignment
with full-pcpus-only: false

Assisted-by: Cursor v2.1.39
AI Attribution: AIA PAI Hin v1.0 Model: Auto

openshift-ci · 2026-01-17T07:04:49Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mrniranjan
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign marsik for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

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

Adds tests related to Odd integer cpu alignment with full-pcpus-only: false Assisted-by: Cursor v2.1.39 AI Attribution: AIA PAI Hin v1.0 Signed-off-by: Niranjan M.R <mniranja@redhat.com>

openshift-ci-robot · 2026-01-17T12:11:54Z

@mrniranjan: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-74027, 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 (4.22.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.22.0)
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.

Details

In response to this:

Adds tests related to Odd integer cpu alignment
with full-pcpus-only: false

Assisted-by: Cursor v2.1.39
AI Attribution: AIA PAI Hin v1.0 Model: Auto

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-ci · 2026-01-17T12:11:56Z

@openshift-ci-robot: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: mrniranjan.

Note that only openshift members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

Details

In response to this:

@mrniranjan: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-74027, 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 (4.22.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.22.0)

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:

Adds tests related to Odd integer cpu alignment
with full-pcpus-only: false

Assisted-by: Cursor v2.1.39
AI Attribution: AIA PAI Hin v1.0 Model: Auto

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.

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.

mrniranjan · 2026-01-17T15:22:23Z

/retest

Tal-or

overall looking good.
few comments inside

Tal-or · 2026-01-19T08:16:04Z

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

+				// Restore original policy with full-pcpus-only: true
+				perfProfile, err := profiles.GetByNodeLabels(testutils.NodeSelectorLabels)
+				Expect(err).ToNot(HaveOccurred())
+				prof := perfProfile.DeepCopy()


We already DeepCopy the original profile in the BeforeAll we can use it for the revert.

Addressed in latest commit

Tal-or · 2026-01-19T08:33:35Z

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

+				testlog.TaggedInfof("Pod", "CPUs used by %q are: %q (requested: %d)", testpod.Name, podCpuset.String(), requestedCPUs)
+
+				// Verify the pod got exactly the requested number of CPUs
+				Expect(podCpuset.Size()).To(Equal(requestedCPUs), "Pod should have exactly %d CPUs, got %d", requestedCPUs, podCpuset.Size())


nit: checking that we got the exact number of requested cpus is basically checking the kubelet core basic logic.
I would say it's redundant.

Addressed in latest commit

Tal-or · 2026-01-19T08:34:11Z

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

+				testlog.TaggedInfof("Pod", "CPUs used by %q are: %q (requested: %d)", testpod.Name, podCpuset.String(), requestedCPUs)
+
+				// Verify the pod got exactly the requested number of CPUs
+				Expect(podCpuset.Size()).To(Equal(requestedCPUs), "Pod should have exactly %d CPUs, got %d", requestedCPUs, podCpuset.Size())


Addressed in latest commit

Signed-off-by: Niranjan M.R <mniranja@redhat.com>

ffromani

the general direction looks OK, will have a final pass once the minorish inline comments are addressed

ffromani · 2026-01-19T13:03:04Z

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

+				llcPolicyOddCPUs := `{"cpuManagerPolicyOptions":{"prefer-align-cpus-by-uncorecache":"true", "full-pcpus-only":"false"}}`
+				perfProfile, err := profiles.GetByNodeLabels(testutils.NodeSelectorLabels)
+				Expect(err).ToNot(HaveOccurred())
+				initialProfile = perfProfile.DeepCopy()


do we want to use the top-level initial profile or do we want to add a more localized variable?
I'm slightly leaning towards the latter but I don't really have strong preferences

fixed in latest commit

ffromani · 2026-01-19T13:04:35Z

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

+			BeforeEach(func() {
+				hasBaremetal := false
+				for i := range workerRTNodes {
+					isVM, err := infrastructure.IsVM(context.Background(), &workerRTNodes[i])
+					Expect(err).ToNot(HaveOccurred())
+					if !isVM {
+						hasBaremetal = true
+						break
+					}
+				}
+				if !hasBaremetal {
+					Skip("Skipping test. All workers in this test setup are VMs, no baremetal node was found")
+				}
+			})


this should probably be the first thing we do in BeforeAll. Furthermore, this checks we have at least 1 BM worker. Would it be useful to track and only use the BM workers later on?

Addressed in latest commit

ffromani · 2026-01-19T13:05:47Z

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

+
+			It("[test_id:87072] Odd integer CPU request: 3 CPUs should prefer whole cores", func(ctx context.Context) {
+				requestedCPUs := 3
+				targetNode := workerRTNodes[0]


this picks a random worker node. Which is ok, as long as we pick a random worker node among the BM ones.

This test will exclusively run on Hardware that supports Uncore Cache . And typically in our downstream CI we label worker-cnf only to those nodes that support this feature

this is unnecessarily fragile, but OK, your call

fixed in the latest commit

Signed-off-by: Niranjan M.R <mniranja@redhat.com>

mrniranjan · 2026-01-19T17:01:17Z

/retest

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

ffromani · 2026-02-04T08:39:23Z

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

+
+			It("[test_id:87072] Odd integer CPU request: 3 CPUs should prefer whole cores", func(ctx context.Context) {
+				requestedCPUs := 3
+				targetNode := workerRTNodes[0]


this is unnecessarily fragile, but OK, your call

ffromani · 2026-02-04T08:40:37Z

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

+				targetNode := workerRTNodes[0]
+				// Get the actual uncore cache size


move target node selectio in a BeforeEach or JustBeforeEach block, unless each test has a clear reason to choose its own node.

fixed in the latest commit

Signed-off-by: Niranjan M.R <mniranja@redhat.com>

openshift-ci · 2026-02-04T16:40:32Z

@mrniranjan: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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 bot requested review from Tal-or and ffromani January 17, 2026 07:04

AA: E2E: LLC: Add tests related to odd cpus

b9c4461

Adds tests related to Odd integer cpu alignment with full-pcpus-only: false Assisted-by: Cursor v2.1.39 AI Attribution: AIA PAI Hin v1.0 Signed-off-by: Niranjan M.R <mniranja@redhat.com>

mrniranjan force-pushed the llc_odd_cpus branch from ae53b6c to b9c4461 Compare January 17, 2026 11:10

mrniranjan changed the title ~~AA: E2E: LLC: Add tests related to odd cpus~~ OCPBUGS-74027: AA: E2E: LLC: Add tests related to odd cpus Jan 17, 2026

openshift-ci-robot added jira/valid-reference Indicates that this PR references a valid Jira ticket of any type. jira/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Jira bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Jan 17, 2026

Tal-or reviewed Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

Remove redundant check of requested cpus and restore initial profile

277b34d

Signed-off-by: Niranjan M.R <mniranja@redhat.com>

ffromani reviewed Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

Move the code of checking Baremetal in BeforeAll section

553eae8

Signed-off-by: Niranjan M.R <mniranja@redhat.com>

ffromani reviewed Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

mrniranjan added 2 commits February 4, 2026 17:56

Use existing context variable and pick one BM worker node

f87a413

Signed-off-by: Niranjan M.R <mniranja@redhat.com>

Remove duplicate targetNode variable definition

74d26d9

Signed-off-by: Niranjan M.R <mniranja@redhat.com>

		targetNode := workerRTNodes[0]
		// Get the actual uncore cache size

Conversation

mrniranjan commented Jan 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 17, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci-robot commented Jan 17, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 17, 2026

Uh oh!

mrniranjan commented Jan 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Tal-or left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ffromani left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mrniranjan commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

mrniranjan commented Jan 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading