[LTP] [PATCH v1] Reduce needed memory by the dio_read test

[Petr Vorel]

Hi all,

> Hi!
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.de>
> > ---
> >  runtest/ltp-aiodio.part4 | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

> > diff --git a/runtest/ltp-aiodio.part4 b/runtest/ltp-aiodio.part4
> > index fc1e1d479..8c10f67fb 100644
> > --- a/runtest/ltp-aiodio.part4
> > +++ b/runtest/ltp-aiodio.part4
> > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ DIT002 dio_truncate
> >  #Running read_checkzero
> >  #gread_checkzero
> >  #Running dio_read
> > -DOR000 dio_read -n 1 -i 100
> > -DOR001 dio_read -n 10 -i 30
> > -DOR002 dio_read -n 20 -i 15
> > -DOR003 dio_read -n 100 -i 4
> > +DOR000 dio_read -n 1 -i 100 -r 512k -w 512k -s 5M
> > +DOR001 dio_read -n 10 -i 30 -r 512k -w 512k -s 5M
> > +DOR002 dio_read -n 20 -i 15 -r 512k -w 512k -s 5M
> > +DOR003 dio_read -n 100 -i 4 -r 512k -w 512k -s 5M

> Limiting the child buffer to 512k makes sense, at least in the cases
> where n > 1 as by default the child allocates 32MB buffer, with 100
> children that makes up to ~3GB. Also this really should have been in the
> patch description, which should really describe why the changes have
> been done.

> But I'm not sure about the -s 5M part, the file size was always 128MB
> before and reducing it to 5M sounds like too much. On my machine that
> reduces the testing time from about one minute to a few seconds, that sounds
> like change that is too radical without further explanation. If we want
> to run the test with smaller file size I would go for 64M, that reduces
> the runtime to half without reducing the changes for triggering a bug
> too much.
Good catch.

I'm also going to verify ADSP075 dio_sparse  -w 518192k -s 518192k -n 1000
from ltp-aiodio.part2. Cyril's suggestion is to use '-n 1' to emulate
only single children in previous implementation.

Kind regards,
Petr