Re: [LTP] Embedded system testing: out of memory (RAM)

[Shane V. <sha...@gm...>]

Subrata,
Yes, I'm working on it.  My time has been limited do to a major
product release I'm involved with but I'm still making good progress.
I hope to have a first cut (preliminary) toward the middle of next
month.
Regards,
Shane

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:45 AM, Subrata Modak
<su...@li...> wrote:
> Shane,
>
>  You said you will be creating a neat document of how to configure LTP
>  for run on embedded systems. Are you working on it ? I would be waiting
>  for that to make it available on the LTP website. It should be more like
>  a technical document which we should be able to produce on other
>  technical websites/magazines.
>
>  Regards--
>  Subrata
>
>
>
>  On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 23:35 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>  > On Friday 25 April 2008, Shane Volpe wrote:
>  > > Thank you both for the feedback.  I will take notes through out my
>  > > effort clean them up and post them along with any patches that I have
>  > > had to add.
>  > >
>  > > quote:
>  > > >> I think longterm there needs to be a max static (flash) and max
>  > > >> dynamic (RAM) arguments that you can set somewhere in ltp
>  > >
>  > > I was a little hasty to make the above statement.  When I sent you
>  > > that email, I had spent several days trying to get ltp to work and
>  > > would fix one memory test only to have ltp fail again with an OOM
>  > > several tests later .  Now that I'm further along and have a better
>  > > perspective on what really is involved with getting ltp working on an
>  > > embedded system I realize the OOM issues really are isolated to a
>  > > handful of tests.
>  > >
>  > > I think that if the few tests that use large memory and don't
>  > > currently contain an input argument to limit it are patched and that
>  > > somewhere there is good documentation (wiki probably) on how to
>  > > configure ltp to work nicely on a small memory (embedded) system
>  > > everyone will be happy.
>  > >
>  > > I guess the tests that use considerable amounts of memory could also
>  > > just be re-written to detect the system RAM making sure to only use
>  > > some percentage of it, if the memory limit makes the test useless then
>  > > it should return some message stating that.  I will look at the tests
>  > > I have had issues with and see if this is an easy thing to implement.
>  >
>  > command line arguments would certainly be desirable in the edge cases, but i
>  > wonder if we should introduce some environment variables and have the default
>  > memory settings key off of those.  that way people who run LTP wholesale (via
>  > the provided scripts or whatever) rather than 1 test at a time by hand dont
>  > have to modify things.
>  >
>  > of course, such an approach would need to start with a high level document
>  > that documents the common memory flags and settings to provide cohesion in
>  > the first place.
>  > -mike
>
>



-- 
Registered Linux User: #293401