From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50053) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fhvsI-0005My-5H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:53:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fhvsF-0007o4-40 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:53:06 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:56502 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fhvsE-0007nq-UI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:53:03 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60E2940241D2 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:53:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:52:57 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20180724115257.GD2479@xz-mi> References: <20180723123305.24792-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20180723123305.24792-5-peterx@redhat.com> <87y3e1f0jf.fsf@secure.mitica> <20180724113654.GB2479@xz-mi> <20180724114205.GB2374@work-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180724114205.GB2374@work-vm> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-3.0 4/4] tests: torture release-ram in postcopy test List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Cc: Juan Quintela , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:42:06PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Peter Xu (peterx@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > > > Peter Xu wrote: > > > > The release-ram capability will run some extra code for postcopy to > > > > release used ram right away, let's just turn that on for the postcopy > > > > unix test always to torture that code path too to make sure release-ram > > > > feature won't break again. The recovery test needs to turn that off > > > > since release-ram cannot coop with that. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > But I think that the proper thing to do here is to have two tests. One > > > for postcopy and another for postcopy + release-ram. > > > > Yeah I thought about it too, but I am not sure whether it'll worth it > > to have a separate test for the release-ram feature (basically that's > > some extra seconds for every unit test, even on relatively fast CPUs). > > I did it this way since IMHO release-ram is mostly adding extra code > > path to the postcopy logic, hence we should not miss much (or any) of > > the old test path. Ideally we should still cover all the postcopy > > code path that we want to test. > > It's worth being a bit careful, since I'm not sure if release-ram has > ever been tested on hosts with larger page size; my suspicion is you > might get a spew of errors on Power. Oh I hope not. If it happens, please feel free to drop this last patch for 3.0. Or I can provide a x86-only version if preferred. Regards, -- Peter Xu