[libvirt] [PATCH 5/5] tests: add qemuxml2argv memfd-memory-numa test

[John Ferlan]

On 09/07/2018 07:32 AM, marcandre.lureau at redhat.com wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau at redhat.com>
> 
> Check anonymous memory is backed by memfd if qemu is capable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau at redhat.com>
> ---
>  tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.args | 28 +++++++++++++++
>  tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.xml  | 36 +++++++++++++++++++
>  tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c                      |  5 +++
>  3 files changed, 69 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.args
>  create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.xml
> 
> diff --git a/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.args b/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.args
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..b26c476196
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.args
> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> +LC_ALL=C \
> +PATH=/bin \
> +HOME=/home/test \
> +USER=test \
> +LOGNAME=test \
> +QEMU_AUDIO_DRV=none \
> +/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 \
> +-name instance-00000092 \
> +-S \
> +-machine pc-i440fx-wily,accel=kvm,usb=off,dump-guest-core=off \
> +-m 14336 \
> +-mem-prealloc \
> +-smp 20,sockets=1,cores=8,threads=1 \
> +-object memory-backend-memfd,id=ram-node0,hugetlb=yes,hugetlbsize=2097152,share=yes,\
> +size=15032385536,host-nodes=3,policy=preferred \

Another syntax-check error here, needed to move the "share=yes," to the
subsequent line.

> +-numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-7,memdev=ram-node0 \
> +-uuid 126f2720-6f8e-45ab-a886-ec9277079a67 \
> +-display none \
> +-no-user-config \
> +-nodefaults \
> +-chardev socket,id=charmonitor,\
> +path=/tmp/lib/domain--1-instance-00000092/monitor.sock,server,nowait \
> +-mon chardev=charmonitor,id=monitor,mode=control \
> +-rtc base=utc \
> +-no-shutdown \
> +-no-acpi \
> +-usb \
> +-device virtio-balloon-pci,id=balloon0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x3
> diff --git a/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.xml b/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.xml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..abe93e8c4b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/memfd-memory-numa.xml
> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> +  <domain type='kvm' id='56'>
> +    <name>instance-00000092</name>
> +    <uuid>126f2720-6f8e-45ab-a886-ec9277079a67</uuid>
> +    <memory unit='KiB'>14680064</memory>
> +    <currentMemory unit='KiB'>14680064</currentMemory>
> +    <memoryBacking>
> +      <hugepages>
> +          <page size="2" unit="M"/>
> +      </hugepages>
> +      <source type='anonymous'/>
> +      <access mode='shared'/>
> +      <allocation mode='immediate'/>
> +    </memoryBacking>
> +    <numatune>
> +        <memnode cellid='0' mode='preferred' nodeset='3'/>
> +    </numatune>
> +    <vcpu placement='static'>20</vcpu>
> +    <os>
> +      <type arch='x86_64' machine='pc-i440fx-wily'>hvm</type>
> +      <boot dev='hd'/>
> +    </os>
> +    <cpu>
> +      <topology sockets='1' cores='8' threads='1'/>
> +      <numa>
> +        <cell id='0' cpus='0-7' memory='14680064' unit='KiB'/>
> +      </numa>
> +    </cpu>
> +    <clock offset='utc'/>
> +    <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
> +    <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
> +    <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
> +    <devices>
> +      <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64</emulator>
> +      <memballoon model='virtio'/>
> +    </devices>
> +  </domain>
> diff --git a/tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c b/tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c
> index 35df63b2ac..76008a8d07 100644
> --- a/tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c
> +++ b/tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c
> @@ -2928,6 +2928,11 @@ mymain(void)
>      DO_TEST("fd-memory-no-numa-topology", QEMU_CAPS_OBJECT_MEMORY_FILE,
>              QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>  
> +    DO_TEST("memfd-memory-numa",
> +            QEMU_CAPS_OBJECT_MEMORY_MEMFD,
> +            QEMU_CAPS_OBJECT_MEMORY_MEMFD_HUGETLB,
> +            QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
> +

Theoretically, if we have 3.1 capabilties to test against, then this
would use a DO_TEST_CAPS_LATEST, while a "pre-3.1" would still be using
-ramfd, right?  That is, using DO_TEST_CAPS_VER w/ "3.0.0" would
generate different results.

I'm conflicted if we should wait for someone to generate the 3.1 caps or
not. For whatever reason, when I post them they're not quite right for
someone else's tastes...

Let's see if anyone else has strong feelings one way or another.

John

>      DO_TEST("cpu-check-none", QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>      DO_TEST("cpu-check-partial", QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>      DO_TEST("cpu-check-full", QEMU_CAPS_KVM);
>