Skip to content

chore(test): Unify guest memory dimension #5208

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged

Conversation

zulinx86
Copy link
Contributor

@zulinx86 zulinx86 commented May 14, 2025

Changes

Make the boot time perf test use guest_memory as a dimension instead of guest_mem_mib.

Reason

Only boot time perf test uses guest_mem_mib as a dimension while all the others use guest_memory via vm.dimensions, which makes it a pain when treating metrics data with pandas DataFrame.

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.

Only boot time perf test uses `guest_mem_mib` as a dimension while all
the others use `guest_memory` via `vm.dimensions`, which makes it a pain
when treating metrics data with pandas DataFrame.

Signed-off-by: Takahiro Itazuri <itazur@amazon.com>
@zulinx86 zulinx86 force-pushed the unify_guest_memory_dimension branch from 31825b5 to 6b7592b Compare May 14, 2025 08:42
@zulinx86 zulinx86 added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label May 14, 2025
@ShadowCurse ShadowCurse merged commit 4ed5ccc into firecracker-microvm:main May 14, 2025
5 of 6 checks passed
@zulinx86 zulinx86 deleted the unify_guest_memory_dimension branch May 14, 2025 10:06
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 14, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.93%. Comparing base (fe96ef3) to head (6b7592b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5208      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.88%   82.93%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         250      250              
  Lines       26936    26936              
==========================================
+ Hits        22325    22339      +14     
+ Misses       4611     4597      -14     
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 83.37% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 83.37% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6a.metal 82.59% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6g.metal 79.19% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 83.36% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7a.metal-48xl 82.57% <ø> (?)
5.10-m7g.metal 79.19% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7i.metal-24xl 83.32% <ø> (?)
5.10-m7i.metal-48xl 83.32% <ø> (?)
5.10-m8g.metal-24xl 79.19% <ø> (?)
5.10-m8g.metal-48xl 79.19% <ø> (?)
6.1-c5n.metal 83.42% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 83.41% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6a.metal 82.63% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6g.metal 79.19% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6i.metal 83.40% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7a.metal-48xl 82.62% <ø> (?)
6.1-m7g.metal 79.19% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m7i.metal-24xl 83.42% <ø> (?)
6.1-m8g.metal-24xl 79.19% <ø> (?)
6.1-m8g.metal-48xl 79.19% <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.

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