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 Xenemail@example.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel