DPDK CI discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
* [dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, February 6th
@ 2018-02-08 11:24 O'Driscoll, Tim
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: O'Driscoll, Tim @ 2018-02-08 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ci
  Cc: Bob Noseworthy, Mcnamara, John, Shepard Siegel, Thomas Monjalon,
	Erez Scop, Shreyansh Jain, Xu, Qian Q, pmacarth, Matt Spencer,
	Gema Gomez, George Zhao, Mishra, Shishir, Lixuming, Tkachuk,
	Georgii, Trishan de Lanerolle, Sean Campbell, Ali Alnubani,
	May Chen

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1864 bytes --]

Test Infrastructure:

- Patrick sent email to the ci@dpdk.org<mailto:ci@dpdk.org> list proposing a JSON schema that all vendor's test cases should produce to allow easy insertion into the database. See http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/ci/2018-February/000166.html. Let Patrick know if you have any comments on this.

- Beginning to look at email reporting. This is a balance between providing sufficient notification of results versus not overloading people with email. Proposed that email is sent per vendor/test, and that it's only sent for failures (results outside of specified tolerance).

- Discussed what happens if a developer is notified that his patch degrades performance on an architecture that they does not have access to. How do they debug? Agreed that it will be the role of the maintainer for the affected part of DPDK to make a recommendation on how the issue can be resolved.

- Shreyansh will follow up with Patrick to make sure that the database schema allows for storing relative results, not just absolute performance numbers. We agreed previously that vendors should have the option to publish a) no results, b) relative performance results versus previous test runs or c) absolute performance data. The end goal is to get to option c for all platforms, but while hardware and software is being tuned for a new platform we may need to use a or b.



Hardware Availability:

- For the Intel hardware, the DTS issue has been resolved and the hardware should be ready to ship around the end of this week.

- For Mellanox, they're still seeing some issues with the single core performance tests using TRex and DTS. Ali will follow up with Qian on this to see if she has any suggestions.

- For NXP, the hardware is now in their lab. DTS integration is expected to take about a month.



Next Meeting:

- Tuesday Feb 20th.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4471 bytes --]

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:#0563C1;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:#954F72;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
	margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:windowtext;}
span.PlainTextChar
	{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
	font-family:"Courier New";}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Test Infrastructure:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">- Patrick sent email to the <a href="mailto:ci@dpdk.org">
ci@dpdk.org</a> list proposing a JSON schema that all vendor&#8217;s test cases should produce to allow easy insertion into the database. See
<a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/ci/2018-February/000166.html">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/ci/2018-February/000166.html</a>. Let Patrick know if you have any comments on this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">- Beginning to look at email reporting. This is a balance between providing sufficient notification of results versus not overloading people with email. Proposed that email is sent per vendor/test, and that it&#8217;s only sent for failures
 (results outside of specified tolerance).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">- Discussed what happens if a developer is notified that his patch degrades performance on an architecture that they does not have access to. How do they debug? Agreed that it will be the role of the maintainer for the affected part
 of DPDK to make a recommendation on how the issue can be resolved.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">- Shreyansh will follow up with Patrick to make sure that the database schema allows for storing relative results, not just absolute performance numbers. We agreed previously that vendors should have the option to publish a) no results,
 b) relative performance results versus previous test runs or c) absolute performance data. The end goal is to get to option c for all platforms, but while hardware and software is being tuned for a new platform we may need to use a or b.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hardware Availability:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">- For the Intel hardware, the DTS issue has been resolved and the hardware should be ready to ship around the end of this week.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">- For Mellanox, they&#8217;re still seeing some issues with the single core performance tests using TRex and DTS. Ali will follow up with Qian on this to see if she has any suggestions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">- For NXP, the hardware is now in their lab. DTS integration is expected to take about a month.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Next Meeting:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">- Tuesday Feb 20th.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, back to index

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-02-08 11:24 [dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, February 6th O'Driscoll, Tim

DPDK CI discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/0 ci/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 ci ci/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/ci \
		ci@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index ci


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.ci


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox