* Peter Xu ([email protected]) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > > Peter Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The release-ram capability will run some extra code for postcopy to > > > release used ram right away, let's just turn that on for the postcopy > > > unix test always to torture that code path too to make sure release-ram > > > feature won't break again. The recovery test needs to turn that off > > > since release-ram cannot coop with that. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <[email protected]> > > > > Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <[email protected]> > > Thanks. > > > > > But I think that the proper thing to do here is to have two tests. One > > for postcopy and another for postcopy + release-ram. > > Yeah I thought about it too, but I am not sure whether it'll worth it > to have a separate test for the release-ram feature (basically that's > some extra seconds for every unit test, even on relatively fast CPUs). > I did it this way since IMHO release-ram is mostly adding extra code > path to the postcopy logic, hence we should not miss much (or any) of > the old test path. Ideally we should still cover all the postcopy > code path that we want to test.
It's worth being a bit careful, since I'm not sure if release-ram has ever been tested on hosts with larger page size; my suspicion is you might get a spew of errors on Power. Dave > Regards, > > -- > Peter Xu -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
