On 8/27/26 13:03, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 12:16:56PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >> Hi Denis! >> >> Please make sure to CC: the qtest maintainer (Fabiano Rosas) on series like >> this. >> >> On 24/08/2026 22.06, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>> John reported ide-test dying at startup in the NetBSD VM: >>> >>> ERROR:../src/tests/qtest/ide-test.c:1260:main: assertion failed: >>> (ret == 0) >>> >>> The hypothesys is that the ftruncate() of a 64 MiB scratch image. NetBSD >>> mounts /tmp as a tmpfs sized at 25% of RAM and charges a file its full >>> length themoment it is extended, so a sparse image is not free there and >>> the call returns ENOSPC. The assert dates to 2013, nothing regressed. >> Does NetBSD have another file like /var/tmp that might be friendlier to >> sparse files? If so, maybe that should be used instead? >> >> OTOH, our NetBSD VM in tests/vm/ uses 4G of RAM, so a temporary file with >> just 64 MiB should really not be a problem...? > Or this is a concurrency scaling problem, or racing with another test > that also uses stuff ? > > We hard code memory to 4 GB, but -smp we scale to "$NUM-CPUs / 2" > for the "make vm-build-DIST" commands. > > IOW, regardless of whether QEMU is launched with -smp 1 or -smp 20, > we only give it 4 GB to play with. We could be using a lot of RAM > for concurrent build jobs leaving almost nothing for the tmpfs for > the test. > > If we were that close to exhaustion I'd expected to see out of > memory errors, but I'm unclear what NetBSD's behaviour is in > this respect ? Maybe normal RAM usage can be pushed to swap > (of which I see another 4 GB) while tmpfs can't be pushed > to swap ? > > > > > With regards, > Daniel Guys,
will somebody take a look into what was done? This makes sense anyway - unified same class error tracking plus requirements reduction. Or if nobody care I could just push along with another test fix? Thank you in advance, Den
