Re: Setting up DPDK PMD Test Suite

[Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8617 bytes --]

Hi Adam,

I have no good ideas on the problem with LLDP packets. I've tried 
various things in attempt to repeat the problem without any luck. Since 
these packet come from Peer/Tester (based on source MAC information), I 
think it would make sense to check ethtool priv flags while tests run 
running to see FW LLDP status. May be it is enabled and testing do not 
notice it (theoretically configuration is synced and checked to match 
after each test, so it should not be a problem). I think it would be 
useful to double-check on all interfaces of the NIC.

Do you have any progress with run on ARM DUTs? Does it work?

Please, let me know if you need any help and if something is blocking it 
to be moved forward and used on regular basis.

Andrew.

On 11/20/23 20:18, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> On 11/16/23 23:03, Adam Hassick wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>>     If you use copy of dpdk-ethdev-ts has
>>     398e272495143884274f5a53c6fe0cc16df41052, you don't need to pass
>>     --trc-tag=pci-8086-1572 any more since corresponding changeset
>>     updates expectations to have the same for pci-8086-1583.
>>
>>
>> I'll try this for the next run.
>>
>>     Sorry, but I've failed to find what's wrong there.
>>
>>
>> That if statement works if using the traditional single-bracket 
>> conditional, or it needs to be rewritten as "[[ -z "${test_log}" ]] 
>> || [[ ! -r "${test_log}" ]]". The latter is the change I made, but 
>> both work.
>
> Thanks a lot. Hopefully fixed.
>
>>
>>     As far as I can see LLDP packets spoil testing results:
>>     https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=362760&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true&lineNumber=1_63
>>     <https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=362760&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true&lineNumber=1_63>
>>
>>     As far as I can see main prologue disables FW LLDP on Tester
>>     https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=362400&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true&lineNumber=1_80
>>     <https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=362400&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true&lineNumber=1_80>
>>     but I guess it could be still enabled on DUT side and DPDK do not
>>     provide means to disable it as far as I know. I vaguely remember
>>     that Intel provides FW configuration tools which can do it.
>>     It is interesting since DPDK gets unexpected LLDP packets but may
>>     be packets sent by FW go via loopback and visible to PF as well.
>>     Other possible source of LLDP packet is a switch if NICs are
>>     connected via switch. If so, LLDP should be disabled on
>>     corresponding switch ports.
>>
>>     As far as I can see fixing the problem should make results much
>>     closer. However, I already see some differences in behaviour
>>     which should be simply fixed in TRC. For example, X710 gets 9
>>     packets less than configuration number of Rx descriptors, but
>>     XL710 gets 10 packets less.
>>
>>
>> I have the "disable-fw-lldp" private flag set on both of the XL710 
>> ports on the DUT machine. Very strange how there are still LLDP 
>> packets appearing in there.
>
> Me too. Corresponding packet has source MAC from Peer/Tester machine NIC.
> It is really strange since prologue disabled LLDP there as well. I'll 
> try to play with it locally more, but have no good ideas in fact.
>
>> These systems are not connected to any switch, so maybe a service on 
>> the DUT itself is sending them. I'm not sure how that could be 
>> happening though, because I don't have the LLDP daemon installed on 
>> either system.
>>
>>     Also I see that performance tests are not run because of failed
>>     prologue:
>>     https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=369564&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true
>>     <https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=369564&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true>
>>     I'll investigate it, but I guess the source of difference is that
>>     we always run tests on single interface. Just add -p0
>>     (--cfg=iol-dts-xl710-p0) to your configuration name. You don't
>>     need to change ts-rigs for it since the suffix is handled by
>>     generic code. It simply comments the second instance and forces
>>     take the first interface only into account. Initially it was
>>     introduced to run independent tests on different ports to be able
>>     to share configuration, but I guess right now it has limitations
>>     for some packages like representors which require entire NIC.
>>
>>
>> I can try that and will see if it works.
>
> This problem is fixed in fresh TE and dpdk-ethdev-ts published on GitHub.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adam
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:20 AM Andrew Rybchenko 
>> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Adam,
>>
>>     On 11/7/23 23:30, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>     Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>>     The runner machine was missing a dependency for one of the
>>>     scripts, "pixz". After installing that, it appears to have
>>>     worked. I can see the results listed on the ts-factory Bublik
>>>     instance.
>>
>>     If you use copy of dpdk-ethdev-ts has
>>     398e272495143884274f5a53c6fe0cc16df41052, you don't need to pass
>>     --trc-tag=pci-8086-1572 any more since corresponding changeset
>>     updates expectations to have the same for pci-8086-1583.
>>
>>>     In the latest revision of ts-rigs, there appears to be a syntax
>>>     error at line 42 within the script located at
>>>     "ts-rigs/scripts/publish_logs/prj/ts-factory/publish", within
>>>     the if condition. I fixed it locally to get it to run.
>>
>>     Sorry, but I've failed to find what's wrong there.
>>
>>>     Taking a quick look at a comparison against your most recent
>>>     X710 run, it looks like we're NOK on around ~400 more test
>>>     cases. By percentage of tests, we're 1% off, however, it looks
>>>     like whole subsets of the test suite that contain low numbers of
>>>     tests are failing. I wonder if this is due to differences
>>>     between the Intel X710 and XL710 or issues in our dev testbed.
>>
>>     As far as I can see LLDP packets spoil testing results:
>>     https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=362760&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true&lineNumber=1_63
>>     <https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=362760&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true&lineNumber=1_63>
>>
>>     As far as I can see main prologue disables FW LLDP on Tester
>>     https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=362400&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true&lineNumber=1_80
>>     <https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=362400&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true&lineNumber=1_80>
>>     but I guess it could be still enabled on DUT side and DPDK do not
>>     provide means to disable it as far as I know. I vaguely remember
>>     that Intel provides FW configuration tools which can do it.
>>     It is interesting since DPDK gets unexpected LLDP packets but may
>>     be packets sent by FW go via loopback and visible to PF as well.
>>     Other possible source of LLDP packet is a switch if NICs are
>>     connected via switch. If so, LLDP should be disabled on
>>     corresponding switch ports.
>>
>>     As far as I can see fixing the problem should make results much
>>     closer. However, I already see some differences in behaviour
>>     which should be simply fixed in TRC. For example, X710 gets 9
>>     packets less than configuration number of Rx descriptors, but
>>     XL710 gets 10 packets less.
>>
>>     Also I see that performance tests are not run because of failed
>>     prologue:
>>     https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=369564&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true
>>     <https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/log/362398?focusId=369564&mode=treeAndinfoAndlog&experimental=true>
>>     I'll investigate it, but I guess the source of difference is that
>>     we always run tests on single interface. Just add -p0
>>     (--cfg=iol-dts-xl710-p0) to your configuration name. You don't
>>     need to change ts-rigs for it since the suffix is handled by
>>     generic code. It simply comments the second instance and forces
>>     take the first interface only into account. Initially it was
>>     introduced to run independent tests on different ports to be able
>>     to share configuration, but I guess right now it has limitations
>>     for some packages like representors which require entire NIC.
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     Andrew.
>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Adam
>>
>>     (dropped history, to keep mail size small)
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15245 bytes --]