Skip to content

Conversation

@roypat
Copy link
Contributor

@roypat roypat commented Feb 13, 2025

If we set deflate_on_oom to False, and then induce an out of memory condition, then we're really only testing how well the guest can handle oom conditions. Do not fail the test if the guest responds to OOM by shutting down though.

Changes

...

Reason

...

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

If we set deflate_on_oom to False, and then induce an out of memory
condition, then we're really only testing how well the guest can handle
oom conditions. Do not fail the test if the guest responds to OOM by
shutting down though.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 13, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.21%. Comparing base (561068a) to head (a85b124).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5039   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.21%   83.21%           
=======================================
  Files         245      245           
  Lines       26626    26626           
=======================================
  Hits        22156    22156           
  Misses       4470     4470           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 83.69% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 83.67% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6a.metal 82.89% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6g.metal 79.64% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 83.67% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7g.metal 79.64% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 83.69% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 83.67% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6a.metal 82.89% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6g.metal 79.63% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6i.metal 83.68% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7g.metal 79.64% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@roypat roypat added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Feb 13, 2025
@zulinx86 zulinx86 merged commit d1badbb into firecracker-microvm:main Feb 14, 2025
7 of 8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants