On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:37:02 -0300
Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:47:23AM -0400, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > it drops testing of deprecated 'mem' option and will test preferred memdev
> > option instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - make backend size depend on initial RAM size and a number of backends
> > fixes test faulure with spapr machine (Eduardo Habkost
> > <ehabk...@redhat.com>)
> >
> > tests/numa-test.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/numa-test.c b/tests/numa-test.c
> > index 8de8581231..e102b3b70f 100644
> > --- a/tests/numa-test.c
> > +++ b/tests/numa-test.c
> > @@ -14,9 +14,28 @@
> > #include "qapi/qmp/qdict.h"
> > #include "qapi/qmp/qlist.h"
> >
> > -static char *make_cli(const char *generic_cli, const char *test_cli)
> > +typedef struct {
> > + const char *args;
> > + int ram_size; /* size in MB */
> > +} TestData;
> > +
> > +static char *make_cli(const TestData *data, int memdev_count,
> > + const char *test_cli)
> > {
> > - return g_strdup_printf("%s %s", generic_cli ? generic_cli : "",
> > test_cli);
> > + int i;
> > + char *tmp = NULL;
> > + char *cli = g_strdup_printf("%s -m %d", data->args ? : "",
> > data->ram_size);
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; memdev_count && (i < memdev_count); i++) {
> > + tmp = g_strdup_printf("%s -object
> > memory-backend-ram,id=r%d,size=%dM",
> > + cli, i, data->ram_size / memdev_count);
> > + g_free(cli);
> > + cli = tmp;
> > + }
> > + tmp = g_strdup_printf("%s %s", cli, test_cli);
> > + g_free(cli);
> > + cli = tmp;
> > + return cli;
> > }
> [...]
> > + TestData data = { .ram_size = 128 };
> >
> > - if (strcmp(arch, "aarch64") == 0) {
> > - args = "-machine virt";
> > + if (!strcmp(arch, "aarch64")) {
> > + data.args = "-machine virt";
> > + } else if (!strcmp(arch, "ppc64")) {
> > + data.ram_size = 512;
>
> Wouldn't it be simpler to always use "-m 512M" and the same node
> sizes?
it would, but it might make some CI instances start failing more
often where it used to work before. So I picked side of being
conservative and not to hog memory unless it's necessary.
