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

[Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>]

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.