So far the CPU hot-plug qtest was only checking "cpu-add" on x86. With
these patches, we now test "device_add" for hot-plugging CPUs on x86,
and enable the test on ppc64 and s390x, too.

Thomas Huth (4):
  tests: Rename pc-cpu-test.c to cpu-plug-test.c
  tests/cpu-plug-test: Check the CPU hot-plugging with device_add, too
  tests/cpu-plug-test: Check CPU hot-plugging on ppc64, too
  tests/cpu-plug-test: Test CPU hot-plugging on s390x

 tests/Makefile.include |   6 +-
 tests/cpu-plug-test.c  | 261 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/pc-cpu-test.c    | 135 -------------------------
 3 files changed, 265 insertions(+), 137 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tests/cpu-plug-test.c
 delete mode 100644 tests/pc-cpu-test.c

-- 
1.8.3.1

On 10/17/2017 11:32 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> So far the CPU hot-plug qtest was only checking "cpu-add" on x86. With
> these patches, we now test "device_add" for hot-plugging CPUs on x86,
> and enable the test on ppc64 and s390x, too.

Question: is there a reason other than "no one bothered" to not have a 
CPU hot
unplug test, something around the lines of the now cpu-plug-test.c? I might
give it a shot if there is no known roadblocks against it.


Thanks,

Daniel

>
> Thomas Huth (4):
>    tests: Rename pc-cpu-test.c to cpu-plug-test.c
>    tests/cpu-plug-test: Check the CPU hot-plugging with device_add, too
>    tests/cpu-plug-test: Check CPU hot-plugging on ppc64, too
>    tests/cpu-plug-test: Test CPU hot-plugging on s390x
>
>   tests/Makefile.include |   6 +-
>   tests/cpu-plug-test.c  | 261 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   tests/pc-cpu-test.c    | 135 -------------------------
>   3 files changed, 265 insertions(+), 137 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 tests/cpu-plug-test.c
>   delete mode 100644 tests/pc-cpu-test.c
>

On 17.10.2017 18:27, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/17/2017 11:32 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> So far the CPU hot-plug qtest was only checking "cpu-add" on x86. With
>> these patches, we now test "device_add" for hot-plugging CPUs on x86,
>> and enable the test on ppc64 and s390x, too.
> 
> Question: is there a reason other than "no one bothered" to not have a
> CPU hot
> unplug test, something around the lines of the now cpu-plug-test.c? I might
> give it a shot if there is no known roadblocks against it.

AFAIK on x86, you need some ACPI magic on the guest side to do this
(something similar to qpci_unplug_acpi_device_test() in
tests/libqos/pci-pc.c I guess). And on s390x, CPU unplug is not
supported at all. But it might work on ppc64 without guest intervention,
not sure - maybe Bharata can comment on this...

 Thomas

On 10/17/2017 02:36 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 17.10.2017 18:27, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>>
>> On 10/17/2017 11:32 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> So far the CPU hot-plug qtest was only checking "cpu-add" on x86. With
>>> these patches, we now test "device_add" for hot-plugging CPUs on x86,
>>> and enable the test on ppc64 and s390x, too.
>> Question: is there a reason other than "no one bothered" to not have a
>> CPU hot
>> unplug test, something around the lines of the now cpu-plug-test.c? I might
>> give it a shot if there is no known roadblocks against it.
> AFAIK on x86, you need some ACPI magic on the guest side to do this
> (something similar to qpci_unplug_acpi_device_test() in
> tests/libqos/pci-pc.c I guess). And on s390x, CPU unplug is not
> supported at all. But it might work on ppc64 without guest intervention,
> not sure - maybe Bharata can comment on this...

Good point, it won't work in spapr machine without guest intervention too.
Both CPU and LMB unplug relies on guest-side callbacks to complete the
operation.

I'll see how this ACPI magic you mentioned is done and see how hard it is to
do it for ppc64.


Daniel

>
>   Thomas
>