From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC81A0487 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:47:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A054B1BE00; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:47:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF0B1BDFF for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:47:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB2421AF2; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 16:47:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=ko6Vh6mZ7m9OjTl9RpZIj7UOOlDi9PuMedMQJWb8xC4=; b=Vpo4AF8tYJrR bZUBfCxxLRFNhEYH5KTsUIp1BvOimK5Fbqmto6Al2QgztG55kZQHcHIM9yGLnxXZ Hs3N6i1vTdJdTK8pRhQFuCRA9PPLhdKCuWfEZuW7yJBteXFhcpRFbjetODdb68Lc dCM33bFfevK321A1lLNRU8D4lrYci9Y= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=ko6Vh6mZ7m9OjTl9RpZIj7UOOlDi9PuMedMQJWb8x C4=; b=o2Q4htAHsaPrgbK3VmjdHqKpinGkmt0/gH3DnbDl8ouE+3dGZvoXKXn7I Ph8EoJtOb60kW8dUzs8BPJEmx7ufs8wl7jO0AEcfWHkJsarNSq+37rdsTPCcHQgr Crg9SHpR1bmarTObCEsBBM+5EIsDWv/tD4vJLk6YS3IyytKC6g23qqUubsqwXiUQ krDaN9UnDAdcZ0XzHoa7YwDoNZ2KeuuJg1NlPek/8DRL5kjunbWE84qh0a0rJB5e zRVVQPM0KGrtuKDto8xSM593xFnzri3AecHjjrSyycMgS3HiXQ8emUVIjH+fdhR2 BJHCCfinjKqgwZTjHRKmK4Zjp5A9Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrfeeggdduheehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EF3DE380079; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:47:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 22:47:16 +0200 Message-ID: <1667102.eNUTlEWTa7@xps> In-Reply-To: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891268E8EB23B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1562318340-30464-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891268E8EB23B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test/table: skip when not enough memory is available X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi, 05/07/2019 19:54, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > From: David Marchand [mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com] > > Following empirical tries, this test wants at least 3300M of memory to > > run. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand > > Yes, some tests need large amounts of memory. Basic tests should not. > I understand your proposal, but it feels > a bit like a hack for this test. Of course it is a hack, probably on purpose to show the issue :) > Could we create a more generic fix? > > Expanding on your idea, could we wrap this code > into a macro such as TEST_CHECK_FOR_LARGE_MEMORY(memsize_in_gb) > that could live in test.h and call it for this test > (and potentially others that have the same requirements)? I don't see what it would improve. > Or maybe people have a better idea? Yes, a better idea is to reduce the requirements. Requiring more than 3GB for a unit test is not reasonnable. If you want to stress the algorithm, then it is a performance test, and it won't be launched on basic CI. So there are 2 proposals here: - use small memory amount - classify as perf test Please choose one of these two, but neither the hack above, nor a macro to hide the hack. Thanks