Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] test_driver: implement virDomainMemoryStats

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:19 PM Erik Skultety <eskultet(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:36:31PM +0200, Ilias Stamatis wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Stamatis <stamatis.iliass(a)gmail.com&gt; > > --- > > src/test/test_driver.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/src/test/test_driver.c b/src/test/test_driver.c > > index fcb80c9e47..55976eedf1 100644 > > --- a/src/test/test_driver.c > > +++ b/src/test/test_driver.c > > @@ -6845,6 +6845,57 @@ testDomainManagedSaveRemove(virDomainPtr dom, unsigned int flags) > > return 0; > > } > > > > + > > +static int > > +testDomainMemoryStats(virDomainPtr dom, > > + virDomainMemoryStatPtr stats, > > + unsigned int nr_stats, > > + unsigned int flags) > > +{ > > + virDomainObjPtr vm; > > + int ret = -1; > > + > > + virCheckFlags(0, -1); > > + > > + if (!(vm = testDomObjFromDomain(dom))) > > + return -1; > > + > > + if (virDomainObjCheckActive(vm) < 0) > > + goto cleanup; > > + > > + ret = 0; > > + > > +#define STATS_SET_PARAM(name, value) \ > > + if (ret < nr_stats) { \ > > + stats[ret].tag = name; \ > > + stats[ret].val = value; \ > > + ret++; \ > > + } > > + > > + if (virDomainDefHasMemballoon(vm->def)) { > > + STATS_SET_PARAM(VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_ACTUAL_BALLOON, 1024000); > > ^This one... > > > + STATS_SET_PARAM(VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_SWAP_IN, 0); > > + STATS_SET_PARAM(VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_SWAP_OUT, 0); > > + STATS_SET_PARAM(VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_MAJOR_FAULT, 0); > > + STATS_SET_PARAM(VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_MINOR_FAULT, 0); > > + STATS_SET_PARAM(VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_UNUSED, 791584); > > + STATS_SET_PARAM(VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_AVAILABLE, 977816); > > ...and this one should be taken from the definition from what is reported in > <currentMemory>. The reasoning behind that is that you can have multiple > machines defined and those values wouldn't make sense. Right, I'll fix that. > The rest can be semi-random in that the values need to be less than those I > mentioned. My concern here again is that we will have to send different values every time depending on the config. E.g. currentMemory - 45000. But is that good for testing?