Skip to content

Conversation

kalyazin
Copy link
Contributor

Changes

  • exclude /snapshot/load from API latency check
  • preallocate more huge pages

Reason

test_population_latency test fails on large VMs.

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.

When restoring from snapshot via UFFD, if the UFFD handler is eager
enough (eg like the fault-all handler we use for testing), memory
population for a sufficiently large VM may take longer than the limit we
have.

Signed-off-by: Nikita Kalyazin <[email protected]>
With current number of huge pages (4096) being ok for 1GiB VMs, we need
6 times more of them for 6GiB VMs.

Signed-off-by: Nikita Kalyazin <[email protected]>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 25, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.19%. Comparing base (99b7e2c) to head (165431a).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5111   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.19%   83.19%           
=======================================
  Files         249      249           
  Lines       26885    26885           
=======================================
  Hits        22368    22368           
  Misses       4517     4517           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 83.60% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 83.61% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6a.metal 82.80% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6g.metal 79.60% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 83.60% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m7a.metal-48xl 82.80% <ø> (?)
5.10-m7g.metal 79.60% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 83.65% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m5n.metal 83.65% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6a.metal 82.84% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 79.60% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m6i.metal 83.65% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7a.metal-48xl 82.84% <ø> (?)
6.1-m7g.metal 79.60% <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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@kalyazin kalyazin self-assigned this Mar 25, 2025
@kalyazin kalyazin added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Mar 25, 2025
@roypat roypat enabled auto-merge (rebase) March 25, 2025 13:18
@roypat roypat merged commit 56729e7 into firecracker-microvm:main Mar 25, 2025
6 of 7 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