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

[Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
> [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.py    Thu Oct 19 
> 17:01:02 2006 +1000
> +++ b/tools/xm-test/tests/create/16_create_smallmem_neg.py    Thu Oct 19 
> 17:02:40 2006 +1000
> @@ -3,11 +3,11 @@
>  # Copyright (C) International Business Machines Corp., 2005
>  # Author: Dan Smith <danms@xxxxxxxxxx>
>  
> +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-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel