----- "Glauber Costa" <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:49:53PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > This patch implements two tests for kvmclock. First one check > whether > > the date of time returned by kvmclock matches the value got from > > host. Second one check whether the cycle of kvmclock grows > > monotonically in smp guest. > > > > Three parameters were accepted by the test: test loops, seconds > > since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC which could be easily get through > date > > +%s and the max accepted offset value between the tod of guest and > > host. > Good. > > I liked the flag usage. Might help us in the future, when we apply > zach's series plus a couple of ideas we have, to see if it the > problem indeed goes away. > > A minor tip, not strong feelings towards this, would be to extract > some information from host cpu, and print it too. > It would be easier when we're analyzing this reports in the future. > > tsc-based mechanisms are very sensible to: > - vendor > - # of cpus > - # of sockets > - tsc flags > > Sure we can get all this information from /proc/cpuinfo, but having > it > in your final report automatically would be convenient, I think. Yes, they are useful. But since unit tests are running as guest, it would be a hard to gather host information by it self. So maybe we could do this through autotest or other kind of test launcher. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
