[XenPPC] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10][TOOLS][XM-TEST] Fix Memory assumptions in the create tests

2006-11-01 Thread Ewan Mellor 
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:16:03PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:54:16PM +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote:
  
  OK, I've taken the most of the patch, but with the 16MiB low limit left in.
  What's this bit though (I haven't taken this yet)?
 
 Hi Ewan,
   What are the outstanding issues with this patch?  I'm keen to
 get it merged if you're happy with it.

Nothing wrong with it -- I just forgot about it.  Applied now.

Thanks,

Ewan.

___
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel

[XenPPC] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10][TOOLS][XM-TEST] Fix Memory assumptions in the create tests

2006-10-30 Thread Tony Breeds 
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:54:16PM +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote:
 
 OK, I've taken the most of the patch, but with the 16MiB low limit left in.
 What's this bit though (I haven't taken this yet)?

Hi Ewan,
What are the outstanding issues with this patch?  I'm keen to
get it merged if you're happy with it.

Yours Tony

   linux.conf.au   http://linux.conf.au/ || http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
   Jan 15-20 2007  The Australian Linux Technical Conference!


___
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel

[XenPPC] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10][TOOLS][XM-TEST] Fix Memory assumptions in the create tests

2006-10-24 Thread Ewan Mellor 
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:45:36AM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:

 Okay leaving it set at 16MiB, is probably the right thing.  If we get to
 a state the an architecture or OS needs to vary it we can look at
 something like tooLittleMem() then.

OK, I've taken the most of the patch, but with the 16MiB low limit left in.
What's this bit though (I haven't taken this yet)?

diff -r 69035d8a5f2a -r 2854ceda351e 
tools/xm-test/tests/create/14_create_blockroot_pos.py
--- a/tools/xm-test/tests/create/14_create_blockroot_pos.py Thu Oct 19 
17:01:02 2006 +1000
+++ b/tools/xm-test/tests/create/14_create_blockroot_pos.py Thu Oct 19 
17:02:40 2006 +1000
@@ -18,17 +18,12 @@ rdpath = getRdPath()
 # print Using %s % output
 
 if ENABLE_HVM_SUPPORT:
-domain = XmTestDomain(name=14_create_blockroot)
+config = None
 else:
-config = {memory : 64,
-  root   : /dev/hda1,
-  name   : 14_create_blockroot,
-  kernel : getDefaultKernel(),
+config = {root   : /dev/hda1,
   disk   : file:%s/initrd.img,hda1,w % rdpath
   }
-domConfig = XenConfig()
-domConfig.setOpts(config)
-domain = XenDomain(name=domConfig.getOpt(name), config=domConfig)
+domain = XmTestDomain(name=14_create_blockroot, extraConfig=config)
 
 try:
 console = domain.start()


Ewan.

___
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel

[XenPPC] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10][TOOLS][XM-TEST] Fix Memory assumptions in the create tests

2006-10-24 Thread Tony Breeds 
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:54:16PM +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote:
 
 OK, I've taken the most of the patch, but with the 16MiB low limit left in.

Great.

 What's this bit though (I haven't taken this yet)?

Essentially the XenDomain class does not respect the arch defaults where
as XmTestDomain does.  This part of the patch forces both HVM and
non-HVM tests to use XmTestDomain.  With appropriate changes to the
extraConfig arg.

On PPC we need to use the arch defaults to get the console setup
correctly.

I chose not to include the arch defaults in XenDomain as this gives us
flexibility for the future.
 
 diff -r 69035d8a5f2a -r 2854ceda351e 
 tools/xm-test/tests/create/14_create_blockroot_pos.py
 --- a/tools/xm-test/tests/create/14_create_blockroot_pos.py   Thu Oct 19 
 17:01:02 2006 +1000
 +++ b/tools/xm-test/tests/create/14_create_blockroot_pos.py   Thu Oct 19 
 17:02:40 2006 +1000
 @@ -18,17 +18,12 @@ rdpath = getRdPath()
  # print Using %s % output
  
  if ENABLE_HVM_SUPPORT:
 -domain = XmTestDomain(name=14_create_blockroot)
 +config = None
  else:
 -config = {memory : 64,
 -  root   : /dev/hda1,
 -  name   : 14_create_blockroot,
 -  kernel : getDefaultKernel(),
 +config = {root   : /dev/hda1,
disk   : file:%s/initrd.img,hda1,w % rdpath
}
 -domConfig = XenConfig()
 -domConfig.setOpts(config)
 -domain = XenDomain(name=domConfig.getOpt(name), config=domConfig)
 +domain = XmTestDomain(name=14_create_blockroot, extraConfig=config)
  
  try:
  console = domain.start()

Yours Tony

   linux.conf.au   http://linux.conf.au/ || http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
   Jan 15-20 2007  The Australian Linux Technical Conference!


___
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel

[XenPPC] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10][TOOLS][XM-TEST] Fix Memory assumptions in the create tests

2006-10-23 Thread Ewan Mellor 
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 01:22:31PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:

 Fix Memory assumptions in the create tests.
 
 Use the architecture specified idea of minimum memory.
 
 Signed-off-by: Tony Breeds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ---
 
 [Snip]
 
 diff -r 69035d8a5f2a -r 2854ceda351e 
 tools/xm-test/tests/create/16_create_smallmem_neg.py
 --- a/tools/xm-test/tests/create/16_create_smallmem_neg.pyThu Oct 19 
 17:01:02 2006 +1000
 +++ b/tools/xm-test/tests/create/16_create_smallmem_neg.pyThu Oct 19 
 17:02:40 2006 +1000
 @@ -3,11 +3,11 @@
  # Copyright (C) International Business Machines Corp., 2005
  # Author: Dan Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
 +import re
  from XmTestLib import *
  
 -# This is under the default lower limit of 32 and we expect this test
 -# to fail. 16MBs isn't enough for the -xen kernel.
 -MEM = 16
 +# Create a domaain without enough memory.
 +MEM = minSafeMem() - 1

I'm not convinced by this one.  Just because 32 MiB is known to be safe, that
doesn't mean that 31 MiB will cause the domain to crash.  The 16 MiB value is
deliberately _far_ too small, so that the OOM killer kicks in, and the console
runaway is detected.

I don't want this test to intermittently succeed, even if it is a negative
test -- it makes the results hard to analyse.

Is the 16 MiB value a problem for PPC, or were you deliberately trying to test
that 63 MiB failed on that platform?

We could add another arch-specific option -- tooLittleMem() or something -- or
we could just leave this value at 16 MiB.

Ewan.


___
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel

[XenPPC] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10][TOOLS][XM-TEST] Fix Memory assumptions in the create tests

2006-10-23 Thread Tony Breeds 
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:55:22AM +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote:

 I'm not convinced by this one.  Just because 32 MiB is known to be safe, that
 doesn't mean that 31 MiB will cause the domain to crash.  The 16 MiB value is
 deliberately _far_ too small, so that the OOM killer kicks in, and the console
 runaway is detected.

Okay,  that makes more sense.
 
 I don't want this test to intermittently succeed, even if it is a negative
 test -- it makes the results hard to analyse.
 
 Is the 16 MiB value a problem for PPC, or were you deliberately trying to test
 that 63 MiB failed on that platform?

PPC will fail for any memory value  64M, so 16 or 63 makes little
difference.  I probably should haev said this in the commit message but
I changed this test to use minSafeMem() to be consistent with the other
changes I made.

 We could add another arch-specific option -- tooLittleMem() or something -- or
 we could just leave this value at 16 MiB.

Okay leaving it set at 16MiB, is probably the right thing.  If we get to
a state the an architecture or OS needs to vary it we can look at
something like tooLittleMem() then.

Yours Tony

   linux.conf.au   http://linux.conf.au/ || http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
   Jan 15-20 2007  The Australian Linux Technical Conference!


___
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel