Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 2/2] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information

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

 




On 5/3/23 13:56, Nico Boehr wrote:
Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-28 15:10:07)
On 4/28/23 09:52, Nico Boehr wrote:
Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-27 16:50:16)
[...]
diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
index fc3666b..375e6ce 100644
--- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
+++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
@@ -221,3 +221,6 @@ file = ex.elf
[topology]
    file = topology.elf
+# 3 CPUs on socket 0 with different CPU TLE (standard, dedicated, origin)
+# 1 CPU on socket 2
+extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=3,books=3,sockets=4,cores=4,maxcpus=144 -cpu z14,ctop=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=1,entitlement=low -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=2,dedicated=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=10 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=20 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=130,socket-id=0,book-id=0,drawer-id=0 -append '-drawers 3 -books 3 -sockets 4 -cores 4'
If I got the command line right, all CPUs are on the same drawer with this command line, aren't they? If so, does it make sense to run with different combinations, i.e. CPUs on different drawers, books etc?
OK, I will add some CPU on different drawers and books.
just to clarify: What I meant is adding an *additional* entry to unittests.cfg. Does it make sense in your opinion? I just want more coverage for different scenarios we may have.
Ah OK, yes even better.

In this test I chose the values randomly, I can add 2 other tests like

- once with the maximum of CPUs like:

[topology-2]
file = topology.elf
extra_params = -smp drawers=3,books=4,sockets=5,cores=4,maxcpus=240
-append '-drawers 3 -books 4 -sockets 5 -cores 4'


or having 8 different TLE on the same socket

[topology-2]

file = topology.elf
extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=2,books=2,sockets=2,cores=30,maxcpus=240
-append '-drawers 2 -books 2 -sockets 2 -cores 30' -cpu z14,ctop=on
-device
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=2,entitlement=low
-device
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=3,entitlement=medium
-device
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=4,entitlement=high
-device
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=5,entitlement=high,dedicated=on
-device
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=65,entitlement=low
-device
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=66,entitlement=medium
-device
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=67,entitlement=high
-device
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=68,entitlement=high,dedicated=on


What do you think is the best ?
I think both do make sense, since they cover differenct scenarios, don't they?


Yes,

also

[topology-2]
file = topology.elf
extra_params = -smp books=2,sockets=31,cores=4,maxcpus=248
-append '-drawers 1 -books 2 -sockets 31 -cores 4'

Could make sense too, it is the way I found the sclp problem, but it will fail until sclp is fixed using facility 140.







[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux