Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-arm] qom-test

[Markus Armbruster]

Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:

> On 27.04.2018 12:20, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 27 April 2018 at 07:06, Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On 26.04.2018 13:54, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Actually, a worse offender in the "waste everybody's time via redunancy"
>>>> department could be qom-test.

Supporting numbers:

$ time for i in *-softmmu/qemu-system-*; do [ -x $i ] || continue; 
QTEST_QEMU_BINARY=$i QTEST_QEMU_IMG=qemu-img 
MALLOC_PERTURB_=${MALLOC_PERTURB_:-$(( ${RANDOM:-0} % 255 + 1))} gtester -k 
--verbose -m=quick  tests/qom-test ; done
[...]
real    3m27.427s
user    2m7.141s
sys     1m44.354s

aarch64, arm, i386, x86_64 each take more than 30s.

For each target, we walk /machine and qom-get every property.  The test
passes if qom-get doesn't crash, the values we get don't matter.

For x86_64 alone, qom-test executes qom-get more than 45,000 times to
test almost 9,500 objects.  It gets the properties of more than 5000
qemu:memory-region objects, more than 2500 irq objects, almost 300
smbus-eeprom objects, 110 IDE objects, ...  It's nice we can test
qom-get doesn't crash on any of IDE's properties in 110 very slight
variations.  But most of the time, one of the variations would be
enough.

>>> Shall we change qom-test to also only test with the "none" machine in
>>> the normal "make check" mode and only do the full test with all machines
>>> in "make check SPEED=slow" ?
>> 
>> We definitely want something that tries to instantiate every
>> machine, because that does catch bugs.
>
> Yes, after having a closer look at this one, I also think that we should
> *not* change it to run with "none" by default only. The 'qom-list'
> command results in quite a different output depending on which machine
> you run it on.

Only running "none" is too naive.