Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 0/2] tests: Add nodeinfo test data utility scripts

On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 17:43 -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > Andrea Bolognani (2): > > tests: Add script to display nodeinfo test data > > tests: Add script to copy nodeinfo test data from host > > > > tests/nodeinfodata/copy-from-host.sh | 113 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/nodeinfodata/display.sh | 113 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 226 insertions(+) > > create mode 100755 tests/nodeinfodata/copy-from-host.sh > > create mode 100755 tests/nodeinfodata/display.sh > > I'm ambivalent on this pair. > > Not sure what the value of patch 1 is? What should I expect to see > given the arguments? What does "ppc64_cpu --info" show? Perhaps the > better question is - if you run on each directory in nodeinfodata do > you > get what you expect? I've run the script on every existing dataset and the output was correct, as far as I can tell. The script was immensely useful to me back when I was implementing changes to the way the nodeinfo code counts CPUs when subcorese are involved, eg. $ ./display.sh linux-subcores3 8 Threads per core: 8 Present CPUs: 0-159 Core 0: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Core 1: 8* 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Core 2: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Core 3: 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Core 4: 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Core 5: 40* 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Core 6: 48* 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Core 7: 56* 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Core 8: 64 65 66 67 68* 69 70 71 Core 9: 72* 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Core 10: 80* 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Core 11: 88* 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Core 12: 96* 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 Core 13: 104* 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 Core 14: 112* 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 Core 15: 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 Core 16: 128* 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 Core 17: 136* 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Core 18: 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 Core 19: 152* 153* 154* 155* 156* 157* 158* 159* You can see at a glance there's something wrong with this configuration - why is CPU 68 online? What about the last line? This kind of report is especially useful when dealing with processors with a high number of CPUs. > As for patch 2, one would have to know they should use the > copy-from-host.sh script. Perhaps what might be better and/or > somewhat > more interesting on this one is some make check rule that scans the > nodeinfodata trees looking for files that shouldn't be there. That > way > if someone does use their own methodology to copy over the tree we'd > know it (and could message to use the copy-from-host.sh script... I agree, as it stands it's not very discoverable, plus adding the check you suggest would also prevent something like e739d95 from ever being needed again. I'll work on that as soon as I have some time.

Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team