qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v9 07/16] qtest/numa-test: Use detailed -smp CLI in test_def_


From: Andrew Jones
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/16] qtest/numa-test: Use detailed -smp CLI in test_def_cpu_split
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:17:51 +0200

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 03:30:16PM +0800, Yanan Wang wrote:
> Since commit 80d7835749 (qemu-options: rewrite help for -smp options),
> the preference of sockets/cores in -smp parsing is considered liable
> to change, and actually we are going to change it in a coming commit.
> So it'll be more stable to use detailed -smp CLIs in the testcases
> that have strong dependency on the parsing results.
> 
> Currently, test_def_cpu_split use "-smp 8" and will get 8 CPU sockets
> based on current parsing rule. But if we change to prefer cores over
> sockets we will get one CPU socket will 8 cores, and this testcase
> will not get expected numa set by default on x86_64 (Ok on aarch64).
> 
> So now explicitly use "-smp 8,sockets=8" to avoid affect from parsing
> logic change.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> Cc: Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yanan Wang <wangyanan55@huawei.com>
> ---
>  tests/qtest/numa-test.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/qtest/numa-test.c b/tests/qtest/numa-test.c
> index fd7a2e80a0..90bf68a5b3 100644
> --- a/tests/qtest/numa-test.c
> +++ b/tests/qtest/numa-test.c
> @@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ static void test_def_cpu_split(const void *data)
>      g_autofree char *s = NULL;
>      g_autofree char *cli = NULL;
>  
> -    cli = make_cli(data, "-machine smp.cpus=8 -numa node,memdev=ram -numa 
> node");
> +    cli = make_cli(data, "-machine smp.cpus=8,smp.sockets=8 "
> +                         "-numa node,memdev=ram -numa node");
>      qts = qtest_init(cli);
>  
>      s = qtest_hmp(qts, "info numa");
> -- 
> 2.23.0
>

 
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]