Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.5 0/2] tests: A cleanup and a fix

[Markus Armbruster]

Andreas Färber <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 03.12.2015 um 13:06 schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>> Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2 December 2015 at 20:20, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> PATCH 1 cleans up unnecessary type punning.
>>>>
>>>> PATCH 2 plugs a massive memory leak in qom-test.  I think it would be
>>>> nice to have in 2.5, but at this late stage, it's really up to the
>>>> maintainer.
>>>
>>> To go into 2.5 it needs to be reviewed and either be in a pull
>>> request or have a request from the maintainer for me to apply it
>>> directly by the end of today UK time.
>> 
>> Understood.
>> 
>>> Is the memory leak a regression, or have we always leaked and
>>> not noticed?
>> 
>> As far as I can see, a minor leak was introduced in commit 5c1904f, but
>> the major leakage comes from commit dc06cbd, both v2.0.
>
> Well, as the qom-test maintainer I have been struggling with the two 1GB
> Exynos4 machines on i586 hosts from 2.3 on already
> (http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=957379). While this
> happens really early and we have been able to work around it by
> decoupling compilation and execution of the tests a little (blaming make
> or whomever for memory fragmentation), I'd like to investigate whether
> this helps that regression. Otherwise memory cleanup has not been a
> topic for non-QAPI allocations in tests either so it does not seem too
> urgent to me if it's just cosmetic.

I agree chasing small memory leaks in tests is not a priority.  However,
tests dirtying hundreds of megabytes aren't so nice to developers with
small machines.  But as I said, for-2.5 is maintainer's discretion.

> The preceding patch looks fine to me on a first look.
>
> An unrelated question to consider going forward is whether we should
> conditionalize and by default skip my property tests for time reasons.

qom-test has caught bugs early for me, but it is slooow.  Perhaps mark
the tests for all the old machine types as slow?

[...]