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

Reply via email to