From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24794F73D for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:43:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 04F8E22AE7 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:42:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:42:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2D4A44381A; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:42:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <59724033-3e2d-dfc3-403c-c99e3954c90c@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:42:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, aderumier@odiso.com References: <20221209192726.1499142-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20221209192726.1499142-10-aderumier@odiso.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20221209192726.1499142-10-aderumier@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.028 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 09/10] tests: add virtio-mem tests X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 13:43:00 -0000 Am 09.12.22 um 20:27 schrieb Alexandre Derumier: > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com> > --- > test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-hugepages-1G.conf | 11 ++++++ > .../memory-virtio-hugepages-1G.conf.cmd | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ > test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-max.conf | 10 ++++++ > test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-max.conf.cmd | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ > test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio.conf | 10 ++++++ > test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio.conf.cmd | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ > 6 files changed, 136 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-hugepages-1G.conf > create mode 100644 test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-hugepages-1G.conf.cmd > create mode 100644 test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-max.conf > create mode 100644 test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-max.conf.cmd > create mode 100644 test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio.conf > create mode 100644 test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio.conf.cmd > > diff --git a/test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-hugepages-1G.conf b/test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-hugepages-1G.conf > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..616b98e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio-hugepages-1G.conf > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > +# TEST: virtio-mem with memorymax defined memorymax not defined. I think get_max_mem() and thus the test then depends on get_host_phys_address_bits(), i.e. on which host it is run? > +# QEMU_VERSION: 3.0 It wasn't supported on QEMU 3.0 ;) But it raises the question if we should introduce version guards for the feature? Not sure what our current policy is when it comes to actively-opt-in features. Especially if it's still a technology preview. > +cores: 2 > +memory: 32768,virtio=1 > +name: simple > +numa: 1 > +ostype: l26 > +smbios1: uuid=7b10d7af-b932-4c66-b2c3-3996152ec465 > +sockets: 2 > +vmgenid: c773c261-d800-4348-9f5d-167fadd53cf8 > +hugepages: 1024 > \ No newline at end of file (...) > diff --git a/test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio.conf b/test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio.conf > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..f88f6f5 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/test/cfg2cmd/memory-virtio.conf > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ > +# TEST: virtio-mem with memorymax defined same > +# QEMU_VERSION: 3.0 same > +cores: 2 > +memory: 32768,virtio=1 > +name: simple > +numa: 1 > +ostype: l26 > +smbios1: uuid=7b10d7af-b932-4c66-b2c3-3996152ec465 > +sockets: 2 > +vmgenid: c773c261-d800-4348-9f5d-167fadd53cf8 > \ No newline at end of file