WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

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

To: Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10][TOOLS][XM-TEST] Fix Memory assumptions in the create tests
From: Tony Breeds <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:45:36 +1000
Cc: Xen-Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XenPPC-devel <xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:46:07 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20061023105522.GC1924@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to: Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XenPPC-devel <xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <patchbomb.1161308910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061020032225.GQ27551@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061023105522.GC1924@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
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-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel