From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38088) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dkV27-0005EM-FM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 08:45:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dkV1y-0004hb-Qf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 08:45:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52022) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dkV1y-0004h6-IA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 08:45:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:45:02 +0200 From: Igor Mammedov Message-ID: <20170823144502.17203857@nial.brq.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <9b19623e-55e9-ebac-11d3-6ff5fff176fe@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1503372250-5092-1-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1503372250-5092-3-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170823104051.36488fcb@nial.brq.redhat.com> <9b19623e-55e9-ebac-11d3-6ff5fff176fe@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/2] ACPI/unit-test: Add a new testcase for RAM allocation in numa node List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Dou Liyang Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ehabkost@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, rth@twiddle.net, mst@redhat.com On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:12:51 +0800 Dou Liyang wrote: > Hi Igor, >=20 > At 08/23/2017 04:40 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:24:10 +0800 > > Dou Liyang wrote: > > =20 > >> As QEMU supports the memory-less node, it is possible that there is > >> no RAM in the first numa node(also be called as node0). eg: > >> ... \ > >> -m 128,slots=3D3,maxmem=3D1G \ > >> -numa node -numa node,mem=3D128M \ > >> > >> But, this makes it hard for QEMU to build a known-to-work ACPI SRAT > >> table. Only fixing it is not enough. > >> > >> Add a testcase for this situation to make sure the ACPI table is > >> correct for guest. > >> > >> Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost > >> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang > >> --- > >> tests/acpi-test-data/pc/DSDT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 6463 bytes > >> tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SLIT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes > >> tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SRAT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 264 bytes > >> tests/acpi-test-data/q35/DSDT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 9147 bytes > >> tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SLIT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes > >> tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SRAT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 264 bytes > >> tests/bios-tables-test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++= +++++ > >> 7 files changed, 30 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/DSDT.numamem > >> create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SLIT.numamem > >> create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SRAT.numamem > >> create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/DSDT.numamem > >> create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SLIT.numamem > >> create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SRAT.numamem =20 > > > > > > considering only SRAT table has been changed and the other > > tables match with default blobs, I'd suggest to keep only =20 >=20 >=20 > Our testcase is=EF=BC=9A >=20 > + test_acpi_one(" -m 128,slots=3D3,maxmem=3D1G" > + " -numa node -numa node,mem=3D128" > + " -numa dist,src=3D0,dst=3D1,val=3D21", > + &data); >=20 > The DSDT and SLIT don't match with default blobs. do you actually need SLIT table /i.e. -numa dist/ for test at all? it looks not relevant for the test case at the hand, I'd suggest to drop '-numa dist' option for the test. >=20 > So, they can't be dropped. I wonder what's changed, could you post DSDT diff here? (to get diff run 'make V=3D1 check' without DSDT.numamem being present) >=20 > Thanks, > dou. >=20 > > tests/acpi-test-data/[pc|q35]/SRAT.numamem > > in this patch and drop the rest of *.numamem tables > > as test case should fallback to default tables > > when .numamem variant doesn't exists > > > > > > =20 >=20 >=20