From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dor Laor Subject: Re: [Autotest] [KVM-autotest][RFC] 32/32 PAE bit guest system definition Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:07:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4B295A1D.8000303@redhat.com> References: <369259139.1566111260548979540.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1666104288.1566541260549246303.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <6ac58f4f0912151104q5a653d0fm5143211360520bd8@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: dlaor@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jiri Zupka , kvm , autotest , Lukas Doktor To: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14710 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935269AbZLPWHL (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:07:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <6ac58f4f0912151104q5a653d0fm5143211360520bd8@mail.gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/15/2009 09:04 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Jiri Zupka wrote: >> Hello, >> we write KSM_overcommit test. If we calculate memory for guest we need to know >> which architecture is Guest. If it is a 32b or 32b with PAE or 64b system. >> Because with a 32b guest we can allocate only 3100M +-. >> >> Currently we use the name of disk's image file. Image file name ends with 64 or 32. >> Is there way how we can detect if guest machine run with PAE etc.. ? >> Do you think that kvm_autotest can define parameter in kvm_tests.cfg which >> configure determine if is guest 32b or 32b with PAE or 64b. > > Hi Jiri, sorry for taking long to answer you, I am reviewing the > overcommit test. > > About your question, I'd combine your approach of picking if host is > 32/64 bit from the image name with looking on /cat/cpuinfo for PAE > support. We might keep in KISS for the time being since 99% hosts installation are 64 bit only and many times only the guest can turn on PAE to practically use it. So I'll go with naming only. > Let's go with this approach for the final version of the test, OK? > > Thanks and congrats for the test, it's a great piece of work! More > comments soon, >