| Message ID | 20190215133005.15955-7-david@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | tests: Add device unplug tests | expand |
On 15/02/2019 14.30, David Hildenbrand wrote: > We can easily test this, just like PCI. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > --- > tests/device-plug-test.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tests/device-plug-test.c b/tests/device-plug-test.c > index ec6cb5de7b..4c581319c0 100644 > --- a/tests/device-plug-test.c > +++ b/tests/device-plug-test.c > @@ -116,6 +116,22 @@ static void test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request(void) > qtest_quit(qtest); > } > > +static void test_spapr_memory_unplug_request(void) > +{ > + QTestState *qtest; > + > + qtest = qtest_initf("-m 1G,slots=1,maxmem=2G " > + "-object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=1G " > + "-device pc-dimm,id=dev0,memdev=mem0"); > + > + /* similar to test_pci_unplug_request */ > + device_del_request(qtest, "dev0"); > + system_reset(qtest); > + wait_device_deleted_event(qtest, "dev0"); > + > + qtest_quit(qtest); > +} > + > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { > const char *arch = qtest_get_arch(); > @@ -140,5 +156,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request); > } > > + if (!strcmp(arch, "ppc64")) { > + qtest_add_func("/device-plug/spapr_memory_unplug_request", > + test_spapr_memory_unplug_request); > + } > + > return g_test_run(); > } I think I'd maybe use a smaller DIMM (256 MiB? 512 MiB), just in case the test runs on an overloaded CI system with memory constraints ... but anyway: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
On 15/02/2019 14.30, David Hildenbrand wrote: > We can easily test this, just like PCI. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > --- > tests/device-plug-test.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tests/device-plug-test.c b/tests/device-plug-test.c > index ec6cb5de7b..4c581319c0 100644 > --- a/tests/device-plug-test.c > +++ b/tests/device-plug-test.c > @@ -116,6 +116,22 @@ static void test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request(void) > qtest_quit(qtest); > } > > +static void test_spapr_memory_unplug_request(void) > +{ > + QTestState *qtest; > + > + qtest = qtest_initf("-m 1G,slots=1,maxmem=2G " > + "-object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=1G " > + "-device pc-dimm,id=dev0,memdev=mem0"); > + > + /* similar to test_pci_unplug_request */ > + device_del_request(qtest, "dev0"); > + system_reset(qtest); > + wait_device_deleted_event(qtest, "dev0"); > + > + qtest_quit(qtest); > +} > + > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { > const char *arch = qtest_get_arch(); > @@ -140,5 +156,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request); > } > > + if (!strcmp(arch, "ppc64")) { > + qtest_add_func("/device-plug/spapr_memory_unplug_request", > + test_spapr_memory_unplug_request); > + } By the way, it's maybe nicer to put all ppc-related tests into the same if-statement? Thomas
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:30:05 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: > We can easily test this, just like PCI. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > --- Reviewed-by: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org> > tests/device-plug-test.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tests/device-plug-test.c b/tests/device-plug-test.c > index ec6cb5de7b..4c581319c0 100644 > --- a/tests/device-plug-test.c > +++ b/tests/device-plug-test.c > @@ -116,6 +116,22 @@ static void test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request(void) > qtest_quit(qtest); > } > > +static void test_spapr_memory_unplug_request(void) > +{ > + QTestState *qtest; > + > + qtest = qtest_initf("-m 1G,slots=1,maxmem=2G " > + "-object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=1G " > + "-device pc-dimm,id=dev0,memdev=mem0"); > + > + /* similar to test_pci_unplug_request */ > + device_del_request(qtest, "dev0"); > + system_reset(qtest); > + wait_device_deleted_event(qtest, "dev0"); > + > + qtest_quit(qtest); > +} > + > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { > const char *arch = qtest_get_arch(); > @@ -140,5 +156,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request); > } > > + if (!strcmp(arch, "ppc64")) { > + qtest_add_func("/device-plug/spapr_memory_unplug_request", > + test_spapr_memory_unplug_request); > + } > + > return g_test_run(); > }
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 04:56:53PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 15/02/2019 14.30, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > We can easily test this, just like PCI. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > > --- > > tests/device-plug-test.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tests/device-plug-test.c b/tests/device-plug-test.c > > index ec6cb5de7b..4c581319c0 100644 > > --- a/tests/device-plug-test.c > > +++ b/tests/device-plug-test.c > > @@ -116,6 +116,22 @@ static void test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request(void) > > qtest_quit(qtest); > > } > > > > +static void test_spapr_memory_unplug_request(void) > > +{ > > + QTestState *qtest; > > + > > + qtest = qtest_initf("-m 1G,slots=1,maxmem=2G " > > + "-object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=1G " > > + "-device pc-dimm,id=dev0,memdev=mem0"); > > + > > + /* similar to test_pci_unplug_request */ > > + device_del_request(qtest, "dev0"); > > + system_reset(qtest); > > + wait_device_deleted_event(qtest, "dev0"); > > + > > + qtest_quit(qtest); > > +} > > + > > int main(int argc, char **argv) > > { > > const char *arch = qtest_get_arch(); > > @@ -140,5 +156,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > > test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request); > > } > > > > + if (!strcmp(arch, "ppc64")) { > > + qtest_add_func("/device-plug/spapr_memory_unplug_request", > > + test_spapr_memory_unplug_request); > > + } > > + > > return g_test_run(); > > } > > I think I'd maybe use a smaller DIMM (256 MiB? 512 MiB), just in case > the test runs on an overloaded CI system with memory constraints ... but > anyway: 256MiB is the smallest we can do - that's the LMB size. I'd suggest 512MiB so we're testing the logic that gathers the multiple LMBs for the DIMM, since that's kind of hairy (it's basically the bridge between the PAPR and qemu hotplug models which are quite different for memory).
On 15.02.19 16:58, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 15/02/2019 14.30, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> We can easily test this, just like PCI. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >> --- >> tests/device-plug-test.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tests/device-plug-test.c b/tests/device-plug-test.c >> index ec6cb5de7b..4c581319c0 100644 >> --- a/tests/device-plug-test.c >> +++ b/tests/device-plug-test.c >> @@ -116,6 +116,22 @@ static void test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request(void) >> qtest_quit(qtest); >> } >> >> +static void test_spapr_memory_unplug_request(void) >> +{ >> + QTestState *qtest; >> + >> + qtest = qtest_initf("-m 1G,slots=1,maxmem=2G " >> + "-object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=1G " >> + "-device pc-dimm,id=dev0,memdev=mem0"); >> + >> + /* similar to test_pci_unplug_request */ >> + device_del_request(qtest, "dev0"); >> + system_reset(qtest); >> + wait_device_deleted_event(qtest, "dev0"); >> + >> + qtest_quit(qtest); >> +} >> + >> int main(int argc, char **argv) >> { >> const char *arch = qtest_get_arch(); >> @@ -140,5 +156,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >> test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request); >> } >> >> + if (!strcmp(arch, "ppc64")) { >> + qtest_add_func("/device-plug/spapr_memory_unplug_request", >> + test_spapr_memory_unplug_request); >> + } > > By the way, it's maybe nicer to put all ppc-related tests into the same > if-statement? Yes, makes sense! > > Thomas >
diff --git a/tests/device-plug-test.c b/tests/device-plug-test.c index ec6cb5de7b..4c581319c0 100644 --- a/tests/device-plug-test.c +++ b/tests/device-plug-test.c @@ -116,6 +116,22 @@ static void test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request(void) qtest_quit(qtest); } +static void test_spapr_memory_unplug_request(void) +{ + QTestState *qtest; + + qtest = qtest_initf("-m 1G,slots=1,maxmem=2G " + "-object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=1G " + "-device pc-dimm,id=dev0,memdev=mem0"); + + /* similar to test_pci_unplug_request */ + device_del_request(qtest, "dev0"); + system_reset(qtest); + wait_device_deleted_event(qtest, "dev0"); + + qtest_quit(qtest); +} + int main(int argc, char **argv) { const char *arch = qtest_get_arch(); @@ -140,5 +156,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) test_spapr_cpu_unplug_request); } + if (!strcmp(arch, "ppc64")) { + qtest_add_func("/device-plug/spapr_memory_unplug_request", + test_spapr_memory_unplug_request); + } + return g_test_run(); }
We can easily test this, just like PCI. Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> --- tests/device-plug-test.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)