Re: Setting up DPDK PMD Test Suite

[Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 56419 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for taking a look at our log. Netplan was attempting to run DHCP
on our test links, and additionally I discovered that the NIC firmware was
transmitting LLDP packets, causing tests to fail in the same way. Now that
these problems have been fixed, our pass rate on the XL710 is approximately
91%. Now that our test results are in line with yours, we can begin looking
into setting up the production environment.

First, is it possible to run the test agent on ARM hosts? Our ARM testbeds
have the best topology for running this test suite, with separate tester
and DUT servers.

We are testing this test suite on two x86 development servers using the
test suite's recommended server topology. In contrast, our existing x86
production testbeds which run DTS have a single server topology. This
single server has both the tester NIC and the device under test NIC
installed, with NUMA node separation between TRex and DPDK. We're going to
test running the two test agent processes on the single-server testbeds if
we cannot run this on ARM. Is there any reason you can think of that would
prevent this setup from working?

Once we figure out where this can live in production, then we will begin
setting up log storage, Jenkins integration, and Bublik.

Thanks,
Adam

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 6:25 AM Andrew Rybchenko <
andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> > Do these default to vfio-pci?
>
> Yes, vfio-pci is the default.
> However, it does not work in the case of Mellanox which uses bifurcated
> driver. It should mlx5_core for Mellanox NICs.
>
> > Here is the text log from a run on our Intel XL710 NICs, with the
> expected result profile set to the X710.
>
> It is hard to analyze all tests using text logs, but I definitely see one
> common problem. Tests receive unexpected packets and fail because of it.
> Tests are written very strict from this point of view and it brought
> fruits in the past when HW had bugs.
> Are DUT and tester connected back-to-back on tested interfaces or via
> switch?
> If via switch, is it possible to isolate it from everything else?
> If back-to-back, it could be some embedded SW/FW which regenerates these
> packet.
> I definitely see unexpected DHCP packets.
>
> > We haven't set up the Jenkins integration yet, however if this is
> required to import the logs then we will prioritize that.
>
> Unfortunately manual runs do not generate all artifacts required to import
> logs. However, we have almost solved it right now. Hopefully we'll finalize
> it in a day or two. I'll let you know when these changes are available.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew.
>
> On 10/4/23 16:48, Adam Hassick wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Ok, that makes sense. I don't see TE_ENV_H1/H2_DPDK_DRIVER set anywhere in
> the default configurations for the Intel X710. Do these default to vfio-pci?
> We have IOMMU enabled on our development testbed, and should be able to
> bind vfio-pci.
> Here is the text log from a run on our Intel XL710 NICs, with the expected
> result profile set to the X710. We haven't set up the Jenkins integration
> yet, however if this is required to import the logs then we will prioritize
> that.
>  log.txt.tar.gz
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/10N5JfxFMP7lNXDBgJeN_z-NL2JNUY7nJ/view?usp=drive_web>
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 11:04 AM Andrew Rybchenko <
> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>
>> On 9/18/23 17:44, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew and Konstantin,
>>
>> Thank you for adding the tester-dial feature, this opens up the
>> possibility for us to do CI integrated testing in the future.
>>
>> Our Mellanox pass rate is similar to yours (about ~2400 passing, ~4400
>> failing), however our Intel pass rates are far worse.
>> I will try running tests on the XL710 with the trc-tags argument set and
>> see if it improves the pass rate.
>> Another thing I noticed in the results you uploaded is that the results
>> are tagged with vfio-pci and not i40e.
>> Though in the environment dump, the driver on the test machine and the
>> DUT are set to use the i40e driver. Is this important at all?
>>
>>
>> I think it is a misunderstanding here. There are two kinds of driver in
>> configuration: net driver and so-called DPDK driver.
>> Net driver is a Linux kernel network device driver used on Tester side.
>> DPDK driver is a Linux kernel driver to bind device to to use it with
>> DPDK. So, it is NOT a driver inside DPDK (drivers/net/*).
>> In the case of bifurcated driver (like mlx5_core) it is the same in both
>> cases.
>> In non-bifurcated case DPDK driver is some UIO driver(vfio-pci,
>> uio-pci-generic or igb_uio).
>> Some expectations depend on used UIO. For example, uio-pci-generic do not
>> support many interrupts (used by usecases/rx_intr test cases).
>> That's why we care corresponding TRC tag.
>>
>> TE_ENV_*_DPDK_DRIVER variables should be vfio-pc  in 710's Intel case. Or
>> uio-pci-generic if IOMMU is turned off on corresponding machines and Linux
>> distro does not support VFIO no IOMMU mode.
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> There isn't anything preventing us from pushing our results up to the
>> existing Bublik instance running at ts-factory.io that I can think of at
>> the moment.
>> We will have to work out how to submit our results to your Bublik
>> instance in a controlled and secure manner in that case.
>> As far as I know we won't need access controls for the results
>> themselves. I'll discuss this with Patrick and will let you know once we
>> confirm that it's fine.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adam
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 2:26 AM Andrew Rybchenko <
>> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/18/23 09:23, Konstantin Ushakov wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> should we always auto-assign the tags or you don’t do it since it slows
>>> down (by some seconds) the TE startup?
>>>
>>>
>>> Tags are auto-assigned, but I guess it differs in Adam's case since NIC
>>> is a bit different. Below test will help to understand if it is the root
>>> cause of very different expectations. If pass rate will be close to mine,
>>> I'll simply update TRC database to share expectations for mine NIC and NIC
>>> used by Adam.
>>>
>>> Hi Adam,
>>>
>>> I think I second the question from Andrew - happy to help you with the
>>> triage so that we get to the same baseline. Do you have a good way for us
>>> to share the logs? I.e. say upload to ts-factory if we add strict
>>> permissions system so it’s not publishing or any other way.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Konstantin
>>>
>>> On 18 Sep 2023, at 9:15, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Adam,
>>>
>>> I've uploaded fresh testing results to ts-factory.io [1] to be on the
>>> same page.
>>>
>>> I think I know why your and mine results on Intel 710 series NICs differ
>>> so much. Testing results expectations database (dpdk-ethdev-ts/trc/*) is
>>> filled in in terms of TRC tags.  I.e. expectations depends on TRC tags
>>> discovered by helper scripts when testing is started. These tags identify
>>> various aspects of what is tested. Ideally expectations should be written
>>> in terms of root cause of the expected behaviour. If it is a driver
>>> expectations, driver tag should be used. If it is HW limitation, tags with
>>> PCI IDs should be used. However, it is not always easy to classify it
>>> correctly if you're not involved in driver development. So, in order case
>>> expectations for 710's Intel are filled in in terms of PCI IDs. I guess PCI
>>> ID differ in your case and that's why expectations filled in for my NIC do
>>> not apply to your runs.
>>>
>>> Just try to add the following option when you run on your 710's Intel in
>>> order to mimic mine and see if it helps to achieve better pass rate.
>>> --trc-tag=pci-8086-1572
>>>
>>> BTW, fresh TE tag v1.21.0 has improved algorithm to choose tests for
>>> --tester-dial option. It should have better coverage now.
>>>
>>> Andrew.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://ts-factory.io/bublik/v2/runs?startDate=2023-09-16&finishDate=2023-09-16&runData=&runDataExpr=&page=1
>>>
>>> On 9/13/23 18:45, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Adam,
>>>
>>> I've pushed new TE tag v1.20.0 which supported a new command-line option
>>> --tester-dial=NUM where NUM is from 0 to 100. it allows to choose
>>> percentage of tests to run. If you want stable set, you should pass
>>> --tester-random-seed=0 (or other integer). It is the first sketch and we
>>> have plans to improve it, but feedback would be welcome.
>>>
>>> > Is it needed on the tester?
>>>
>>> It is hard to say if it is strictly required for simple tests. However,
>>> it is better to update Tester as well, since performance tests run DPDK on
>>> Tester as well.
>>>
>>> > Are there any other manual setup steps for these devices that I might
>>> be missing?
>>>
>>> I don't remember anything else.
>>>
>>> I think it is better to get down to details and take a look at logs. I'm
>>> ready to help with it and explain what's happening there. May be it will
>>> help to understand if it is a problem with setup/configuration.
>>>
>>> Text logs are not very convenient. Ideally logs should be imported to
>>> bublik, however, manual runs do not provide all required artifacts right
>>> now (Jenkins jobs generate all required artifacts).
>>> Other option is 'tmp_raw_log' file (should be packed to make it smaller)
>>> which could be converted to various log formats.
>>> Would it be OK for you if I import your logs to bublik at ts-factory.io?
>>> Or is it a problem that it is publicly available?
>>> Would it help if we add authentication and access control there?
>>>
>>> Andrew.
>>>
>>> On 9/8/23 17:57, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> I have a couple questions about needed setup of the NICs for the ethdev
>>> test suite.
>>>
>>> Our MCX5s and XL710s are failing the checkup tests. The pass rate
>>> appears to be much worse on the XL710s (40 of 73 tests failed, 3 passed
>>> unexpectedly).
>>>
>>> For the XL710s, I've updated the driver and NVM versions to match the
>>> minimum supported versions in the compatibility matrix found on the DPDK
>>> documentation. This did not change the failure rate much.
>>> For the MCX5s, I've installed the latest LTS version of the OFED
>>> bifurcated driver on the DUT. Is it needed on the tester?
>>>
>>> Are there any other manual setup steps for these devices that I might be
>>> missing?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:00 AM Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I copied the X710 configs to set up XL710 configs. I changed the
>>>> environment variable names from the X710 suffix to XL710 suffix in the
>>>> script, and forgot to change them in the corresponding environment file.
>>>> That fixed the issue.
>>>>
>>>> I got the checkup tests working on the XL710 now. Most of them are
>>>> failing, which leads me to believe this is an issue with our testbed. Based
>>>> on the DPDK documentation for i40e, the firmware and driver versions are
>>>> much older than what DPDK 22.11 LTS and main prefer, so I'll try updating
>>>> those.
>>>>
>>>> For now I'm working on getting the XL710 checkup tests passing, and
>>>> will pick up getting the E810 configured properly next. I'll let you know
>>>> if I run into any more issues in relation to the test engine.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 7:36 AM Andrew Rybchenko <
>>>> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/5/23 18:01, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>>
>>>>> The compilation warning issue is now resolved. Again, thank you guys
>>>>> for fixing this for us. I can run the tests on the Mellanox CX5s again,
>>>>> however I'm running into a couple new issues with running the prologues on
>>>>> the Intel cards.
>>>>>
>>>>> When running testing on the Intel XL710s, I see this error appear in
>>>>> the log:
>>>>>
>>>>> ERROR  prologue  Environment LIB  14:16:13.650
>>>>>> Too few networks in available configuration (0) in comparison with
>>>>>> required (1)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems like a trivial configuration error, perhaps this is
>>>>> something I need to set up in ts-rigs. I briefly searched through the
>>>>> examples there and didn't see any mention of how to set up a network.
>>>>> I will attach this log just in case you need more information.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately logs are insufficient to understand it. I've pushed new
>>>>> tag to TE v1.19.0 which add log message with TE_* environment variables.
>>>>> Most likely something is wrong with variables which are used as
>>>>> conditions when available networks are defined in
>>>>> ts-conf/cs/inc.net_cfg_pci_fns.yml:
>>>>> TE_PCI_INSTANCE_IUT_TST1
>>>>> TE_PCI_INSTANCE_IUT_TST1a
>>>>> TE_PCI_INSTANCE_TST1a_IUT
>>>>> TE_PCI_INSTANCE_TST1_IUT
>>>>> My guess it that you change naming a bit, but script like
>>>>> ts-rigs-sample/scripts/iut.h1-x710 is not included or not updated.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a different error when running on the Intel E810s. It appears
>>>>> to me like it starts DPDK, does some configuration inside DPDK and on the
>>>>> device, and then fails to bring the device back up. Since this error seems
>>>>> very non-trivial, I will also attach this log.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This one is a bit simpler. Few lines after the first ERROR in log I
>>>>> see the following:
>>>>> WARN  RCF  DPDK  13:06:00.144
>>>>> ice_program_hw_rx_queue(): currently package doesn't support RXDID (22)
>>>>> ice_rx_queue_start(): fail to program RX queue 0
>>>>> ice_dev_start(): fail to start Rx queue 0
>>>>> Device with port_id=0 already stopped
>>>>>
>>>>> It is stdout/stderr from test agent which runs DPDK. Same logs in
>>>>> plain format are available in ta.DPDK file.
>>>>> I'm not an expert here, but I vaguely remember that E810 requires
>>>>> correct firmware and DDP to be loaded.
>>>>> There is some information in dpdk/doc/guides/nics/ice.rst.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can try to add --dev-args=safe-mode-support=1 command-line option
>>>>> described there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope it helps,
>>>>> Andrew.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 3:59 AM Andrew Rybchenko <
>>>>> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/31/23 22:38, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one additional question as well: Does the test engine support
>>>>>> running tests on two ARMv8 test agents?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. We'll sort out warnings this week. Thanks for heads up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great. Let me know when that's fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Done. We also fixed a number of warnings in TE.
>>>>>> Also we fixed root test package name to be consistent with the
>>>>>> repository name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Support for old LTS branches was dropped some time ago, but in the
>>>>>>> future it is definitely possible to keep it for new LTS branches. I think
>>>>>>> 22.11 is supported, but I'm not sure about older LTS releases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. You can add command-line option --sanity to run tests marked with
>>>>>>> TEST_HARNESS_SANITY requirement (see dpdk-ethdev-ts/scripts/run.sh and grep
>>>>>>> TEST_HARNESS_SANITY dpdk-ethdev-ts to see which tests are marked). Yes,
>>>>>>> there is a space for terminology improvement here. We'll do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Done. Now it is called --checkup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also it takes a lot of time because of failures and tests which wait
>>>>>>> for some timeout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes sense to me. We'll use the time to complete tests on
>>>>>> virtio or the Intel devices as a reference for how long the tests really
>>>>>> take to complete.
>>>>>> We will explore the possibility of periodically running the sanity
>>>>>> tests for patches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll double-check and let you know how long entire TS runs on Intel
>>>>>> X710, E810, Mellanox CX5 and virtio net. Just to ensure that time observed
>>>>>> in your case looks the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The test harness can provide coverage reports based on gcov, but I'm
>>>>>>> not sure what you mean by a "dial" to control test coverage. Provided
>>>>>>> reports are rather for human to analyze.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The general idea is to have some kind of parameter on the test suite,
>>>>>> which could be an integer ranging from zero to ten, that controls how many
>>>>>> tests are run based on how important the test is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similar to how some command line interfaces provide a verbosity level
>>>>>> parameter (some number of "-v" arguments) to control the importance of the
>>>>>> information in the log.
>>>>>> The verbosity level zero only prints very important log messages,
>>>>>> while ten prints everything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In much the same manner as above, this "dial" parameter controls what
>>>>>> tests are run and with what parameters based on how important those tests
>>>>>> and test parameter combinations are.
>>>>>> Coverage Level zero tells the suite to run a very basic set of
>>>>>> important tests, with minimal parameterization. This mode would take only
>>>>>> ~5-10 minutes to run.
>>>>>> In contrast, Coverage Level ten includes all the edge cases, every
>>>>>> combination of test parameters, everything the test suite can do, which
>>>>>> takes the normal several hours to run.
>>>>>> The values 1 - 9 are between those two extremes, allowing the user to
>>>>>> get a gradient of test coverage in the results and to limit the running
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we could, for example, run the "run.sh" with a level of 2 or 3
>>>>>> for incoming patches that need quick results, and with a level of 10 for
>>>>>> the less often run periodic tests performed on main or LTS branches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Understood now. Thanks a lot for the idea. We'll discuss it and come
>>>>>> back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Yes, really many tests on Mellanox CX5 NICs report unexpected
>>>>>>> testing results. Unfortunately it is time consuming to fill in expectations
>>>>>>> database since it is necessary to analyze testing results and classify if
>>>>>>> it is a bug or just acceptable behaviour aspect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bublik allows to compare results of two runs. It is useful for
>>>>>>> human, but still not good for automation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have local patch for mlx5 driver which reports Tx ring size
>>>>>>> maximum. It makes pass rate higher. It is a problem for test harness that
>>>>>>> mlx5 does not report limits right now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pass rate on Intel X710 is about 92% on my test rig. Pass rate on
>>>>>>> virtio net is 99% right now and could be done 100% easily (just one thing
>>>>>>> to fix in expectations).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think logs storage setup is essential for logs analysis. Of
>>>>>>> course, you can request HTML logs when you run tests (--log-html=html) or
>>>>>>> generate after run using dpdk-ethdev-ts/scripts/html-log.sh and open
>>>>>>> index.html in a browser, but logs storage makes it more convenient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are interested in setting up Bublik, potentially as an
>>>>>> externally-facing component, once we have our process of running the test
>>>>>> suite stabilized.
>>>>>> Once we are able to run the test suite again, I'll see what the pass
>>>>>> rate is on our other hardware.
>>>>>> Good to know that it isn't an issue with our dev testbed causing the
>>>>>> high fail rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For Intel hardware, we have an XL710 and an Intel E810-C in our
>>>>>> development testbed. Although they are slightly different devices, ideally
>>>>>> the pass rate will be identical or similar. I have yet to set up a VM pair
>>>>>> for virtio, but we will soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Latest version of test-environment has examples of our CGI scripts
>>>>>>> which we use for log storage (see tools/log_server/README.md).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also all bits for Jenkins setup are available. See
>>>>>>> dpdk-ethdev-ts/jenkins/README.md and examples of jenkins files in
>>>>>>> ts-rigs-sample.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jenkins integration, setting up production rig configurations, and
>>>>>> permanent log storage will be our next steps once I am able to run the
>>>>>> tests again.
>>>>>> Unless there is an easy way to have meson not pass "-Werror" into
>>>>>> GCC. Then I would be able to run the test suite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully it is resolved now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought a bit more about your usecase for Jenkins. I'm not 100%
>>>>>> sure that existing pipelines are convenient for your usecase.
>>>>>> Fill free to ask questions when you are on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Andrew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/29/23 17:02, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That fix seems to have resolved the issue, thanks for the quick
>>>>>>> turnaround time on that patch.
>>>>>>> Now that we have the RCF timeout issue resolved, there are a few
>>>>>>> other questions and issues that we have about the tests themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The test suite fails to build with a couple warnings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Below is the stderr log from compilation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAILED: lib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta/dpdk_pmd_ts.c.o
>>>>>>>> cc -Ilib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta -Ilib -I../../lib
>>>>>>>> -I/opt/tsf/dpdk-ethdev-ts/ts/inst/default/include
>>>>>>>> -fdiagnostics-color=always -pipe -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -Wall -Winvalid-pch
>>>>>>>> -Werror -g -D_GNU_SOURCE -O0 -ggdb -Wall -W -fPIC -MD -MQ '
>>>>>>>> lib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta/dpdk_pmd_ts.c.o' -MF '
>>>>>>>> lib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta/dpdk_pmd_ts.c.o.d' -o '
>>>>>>>> lib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta/dpdk_pmd_ts.c.o' -c
>>>>>>>> ../../lib/dpdk_pmd_ts.c
>>>>>>>> ../../lib/dpdk_pmd_ts.c: In function
>>>>>>>> ‘test_create_traffic_generator_params’:
>>>>>>>> ../../lib/dpdk_pmd_ts.c:5577:5: error: format not a string literal
>>>>>>>> and no format arguments [-Werror=format-security]
>>>>>>>> 5577 |     rc = te_kvpair_add(result, buf, mode);
>>>>>>>> |     ^~
>>>>>>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>>>>>>> ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed.
>>>>>>>> ninja: Entering directory `.'
>>>>>>>> FAILED: lib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta/dpdk_pmd_ts.c.o
>>>>>>>> cc -Ilib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta -Ilib -I../../lib
>>>>>>>> -I/opt/tsf/dpdk-ethdev-ts/ts/inst/default/include
>>>>>>>> -fdiagnostics-color=always -pipe -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -Wall -Winvalid-pch
>>>>>>>> -Werror -g -D_GNU_SOURCE -O0 -ggdb -Wall -W -fPIC -MD -MQ '
>>>>>>>> lib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta/dpdk_pmd_ts.c.o' -MF '
>>>>>>>> lib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta/dpdk_pmd_ts.c.o.d' -o '
>>>>>>>> lib/76b5a35@@ts_dpdk_pmd@sta/dpdk_pmd_ts.c.o' -c
>>>>>>>> ../../lib/dpdk_pmd_ts.c
>>>>>>>> ../../lib/dpdk_pmd_ts.c: In function
>>>>>>>> ‘test_create_traffic_generator_params’:
>>>>>>>> ../../lib/dpdk_pmd_ts.c:5577:5: error: format not a string literal
>>>>>>>> and no format arguments [-Werror=format-security]
>>>>>>>> 5577 |     rc = te_kvpair_add(result, buf, mode);
>>>>>>>> |     ^~
>>>>>>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This error wasn't occurring last week, which was the last time I ran
>>>>>>> the tests.
>>>>>>> The TE host and the DUT have GCC v9.4.0 installed, and the tester
>>>>>>> has GCC v11.4.0 installed, if this information is helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. On the Mellanox CX5s, there are over 6,000 tests run, which
>>>>>>> collectively take around 9 hours. Is it possible, and would it make sense,
>>>>>>> to lower the test coverage and have the test suite run faster?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For some context, we run immediate testing on incoming patches for
>>>>>>> DPDK main and development branches, as well as periodic test runs on the
>>>>>>> main, stable, and LTS branches.
>>>>>>> For us to consider including this test suite as part of our
>>>>>>> immediate testing on patches, we would have to reduce the test coverage to
>>>>>>> the most important tests.
>>>>>>> This is primarily to reduce the testing time to, for example, less
>>>>>>> than 30 minutes. Testing on patches can't take too long because the lab can
>>>>>>> receive numerous patches each day, which each require individual testing
>>>>>>> runs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At what frequency we run these tests, and on what, still needs to be
>>>>>>> discussed with the DPDK community, but it would be nice to know if the test
>>>>>>> suite had a "dial" to control the testing coverage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. We see a lot of test failures on our Mellanox CX5 NICs. Around
>>>>>>> 2,300 of ~6,600 tests passed. Is there anything we can do to diagnose these
>>>>>>> test failures?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 8:07 AM Andrew Rybchenko <
>>>>>>> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've pushed the fix in main branch and a new tag v1.18.1. It should
>>>>>>>> solve the problem with IPv6 address from DNS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/29/23 00:05, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Does the test engine prefer to use IPv6 over IPv4 for initiating
>>>>>>>> the RCF connection to the test bed hosts? And if so, is there a way to
>>>>>>>> force it to use IPv4?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brilliant idea. If DNS returns both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in your
>>>>>>>> case, I guess it is the root cause of the problem.
>>>>>>>> Of course, it is TE problem since I see really weird code in
>>>>>>>> lib/comm_net_engine/comm_net_engine.c line 135.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've pushed fix to the branch user/arybchik/fix_ipv4_only in
>>>>>>>> ts-factory/test-environment repository. Please, try.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is late night fix with minimal testing and no review. I'll pass
>>>>>>>> it through review process tomorrow and
>>>>>>>> hopefully it will be released in one-two days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/28/23 18:02, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have yet to notice a distinct pattern with the failures.
>>>>>>>> Sometimes, the RCF will start and connect without issue a few times in a
>>>>>>>> row before failing to connect again. Once the issue begins to occur,
>>>>>>>> neither rebooting all of the hosts (test engine VM, tester, IUT) or
>>>>>>>> deleting all of the build directories (suites, agents, inst) and rebooting
>>>>>>>> the hosts afterward resolves the issue. When it begins working again seems
>>>>>>>> very arbitrary to us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do usually try to terminate the test engine with Ctrl+C, but when
>>>>>>>> it hangs while trying to start RCF, that does not work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the test engine prefer to use IPv6 over IPv4 for initiating
>>>>>>>> the RCF connection to the test bed hosts? And if so, is there a way to
>>>>>>>> force it to use IPv4?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  - Adam
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:35 PM Andrew Rybchenko <
>>>>>>>> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > I'll double-check test engine on Ubuntu 20.04 and Ubuntu 22.04.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Done. It works fine for me without any issues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you noticed any pattern when it works or does not work?
>>>>>>>>> May be it is a problem of not clean state after termination?
>>>>>>>>> Does it work fine the first time after DUTs reboot?
>>>>>>>>> How do you terminate testing? It should be done using Ctrl+C in
>>>>>>>>> terminal where you execute run.sh command.
>>>>>>>>>  In this case it should shutdown gracefully and close all test
>>>>>>>>> agents and engine applications.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (I'm trying to understand why you've seen many test agent
>>>>>>>>> processes. It should not happen.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrew.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/23 17:41, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/23 17:06, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two of our systems (the Test Engine runner and the DUT host) are
>>>>>>>>> running Ubuntu 20.04 LTS, however this morning I noticed that the tester
>>>>>>>>> system (the one having issues) is running Ubuntu 22.04 LTS.
>>>>>>>>> This could be the source of the problem. I encountered a
>>>>>>>>> dependency issue trying to run the Test Engine on 22.04 LTS, so I
>>>>>>>>> downgraded the system. Since the tester is also the host having connection
>>>>>>>>> issues, I will try downgrading that system to 20.04, and see if that
>>>>>>>>> changes anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unlikely, but who knows. We run tests (DUTs) on Ubuntu 20.04,
>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu 22.04, Ubuntu 22.10, Ubuntu 23.04, Debian 11 and Fedora 38 every
>>>>>>>>> night.
>>>>>>>>> Right now Debian 11 is used for test engine in nightly regressions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll double-check test engine on Ubuntu 20.04 and Ubuntu 22.04.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did try passing in the "--vg-rcf" argument to the run.sh script
>>>>>>>>> of the test suite after installing valgrind, but there was no additional
>>>>>>>>> output that I saw.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I should valgrind output should be in valgrind.te_rcf
>>>>>>>>> (direction where you run test engine).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will try pulling in the changes you've pushed up, and will see
>>>>>>>>> if that fixes anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:57 AM Andrew Rybchenko <
>>>>>>>>> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Adam,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/23 23:54, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to try to repeat the problem locally. Which Linux distro
>>>>>>>>>> is running on test engine and agents?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact I know one problem with Debian 12 and Fedora 38 and we
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> patch in review to fix it, however, the behaviour is different in
>>>>>>>>>> this case, so it is unlike the same problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've just published a new tag which fixes known test engine side
>>>>>>>>>> problems on Debian 12 and Fedora 38.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One more idea is to install valgrind on the test engine host and
>>>>>>>>>> run with option --vg-rcf to check if something weird is happening.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I don't understand right now is why I see just one failed
>>>>>>>>>> attempt
>>>>>>>>>> to connect in your log.txt and then Logger shutdown after 9
>>>>>>>>>> minutes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/23 23:29, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  > Is there any firewall in the network or on test hosts which
>>>>>>>>>> could block incoming TCP connection to the port 23571
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571> from the host
>>>>>>>>>> where you run test engine?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Our test engine host and the testbed are on the same subnet. The
>>>>>>>>>> connection does work sometimes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  > If behaviour the same on the next try and you see that test
>>>>>>>>>> agent is kept running, could you check using
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > # netstat -tnlp
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > that Test Agent is listening on the port and try to establish
>>>>>>>>>> TCP connection from test agent using
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > $ telnet iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571> 23571
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > and check if TCP connection could be established.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was able to replicate the same behavior again, where it hangs
>>>>>>>>>> while RCF is trying to start.
>>>>>>>>>> Running this command, I see this in the output:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> tcp        0      0 0.0.0.0:23571 <http://0.0.0.0:23571>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://0.0.0.0:23571>           0.0.0.0:*               LISTEN
>>>>>>>>>>      18599/ta
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So it seems like it is listening on the correct port.
>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, I was able to connect to the Tester machine from
>>>>>>>>>> our Test Engine host using telnet. It printed the PID of the process once
>>>>>>>>>> the connection was opened.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I tried running the "ta" application manually on the command
>>>>>>>>>> line, and it didn't print anything at all.
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is something on the Test Engine side.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 2:35 PM Andrew Rybchenko <
>>>>>>>>>> andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
>>>>>>>>>> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Hi Adam,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      > On the tester host (which appears to be the Peer agent),
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>     are four processes that I see running, which look like the
>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>     agent processes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Before the next try I'd recommend to kill these processes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Is there any firewall in the network or on test hosts which
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>     block incoming TCP connection to the port 23571
>>>>>>>>>>     <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571> from the host
>>>>>>>>>>     where you run test engine?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     If behaviour the same on the next try and you see that test
>>>>>>>>>> agent is
>>>>>>>>>>     kept running, could you check using
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     # netstat -tnlp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     that Test Agent is listening on the port and try to establish
>>>>>>>>>> TCP
>>>>>>>>>>     connection from test agent using
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     $ telnet iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu
>>>>>>>>>>     <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571> 23571
>>>>>>>>>>     <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     and check if TCP connection could be established.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Another idea is to login Tester under root as testing does,
>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>     start TA command from the log and try it by hands without -n
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>     remove extra escaping.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     # sudo PATH=${PATH}:/tmp/linux_x86_root_76872_1692885663_1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}${LD_LIBRARY_PATH:+:}/tmp/linux_x86_root_76872_1692885663_1
>>>>>>>>>> /tmp/linux_x86_root_76872_1692885663_1/ta Peer 23571
>>>>>>>>>> host=iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:
>>>>>>>>>> port=23571:user=root:key=/opt/tsf/keys/id_ed25519:ssh_port=22:copy_timeout=15:kill_timeout=15:sudo=:shell=
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Hopefully in this case test agent directory remains in the
>>>>>>>>>> /tmp and
>>>>>>>>>>     you don't need to copy it as testing does.
>>>>>>>>>>     May be output could shed some light on what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Andrew.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     On 8/24/23 17:30, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Hi Andrew,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     This is the output that I see in the terminal when this
>>>>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>>>>     occurs, after the test agent binaries build and the test
>>>>>>>>>> engine
>>>>>>>>>>     starts:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Platform default build - pass
>>>>>>>>>>     Simple RCF consistency check succeeded
>>>>>>>>>>     --->>> Starting Logger...done
>>>>>>>>>>     --->>> Starting RCF...rcf_net_engine_connect(): Connection
>>>>>>>>>> timed
>>>>>>>>>>     out iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571
>>>>>>>>>>     <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://iol-dts-tester.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu:23571>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Then, it hangs here until I kill the "te_rcf" and "te_tee"
>>>>>>>>>>     processes. I let it hang for around 9 minutes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     On the tester host (which appears to be the Peer agent),
>>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>>>     four processes that I see running, which look like the test
>>>>>>>>>> agent
>>>>>>>>>>     processes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     ta.Peer is an empty file. I've attached the log.txt from this
>>>>>>>>>> run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      - Adam
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 4:22 AM Andrew Rybchenko
>>>>>>>>>>     <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru
>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
>>>>>>>>>> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         Hi Adam,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         Yes, TE_RCFUNIX_TIMEOUT is in seconds. I've double-checked
>>>>>>>>>>         that it goes to 'copy_timeout' in ts-conf/rcf.conf.
>>>>>>>>>>         Description in in doc/sphinx/pages/group_te_engine_rcf.rst
>>>>>>>>>>         says that copy_timeout is in seconds and implementation in
>>>>>>>>>>         lib/rcfunix/rcfunix.c passes the value to select() tv_sec.
>>>>>>>>>>         Theoretically select() could be interrupted by signal,
>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>         think it is unlikely here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         I'm not sure that I understand what do you mean by RCF
>>>>>>>>>>         connection timeout. Does it happen on TE startup when RCF
>>>>>>>>>>         starts test agents. If so, TE_RCFUNIX_TIMEOUT could help.
>>>>>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>>>>>         does it happen when tests are in progress, e.g. in the
>>>>>>>>>> middle
>>>>>>>>>>         of a test. If so, TE_RCFUNIX_TIMEOUT is unrelated and most
>>>>>>>>>>         likely either host with test agent dies or test agent
>>>>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>>>>>         crashes. It would be easier for me if classify it if you
>>>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>>>>         text log (log.txt, full or just corresponding fragment
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>         some context). Also content of ta.DPDK or ta.Peer file
>>>>>>>>>>         depending on which agent has problems could shed some
>>>>>>>>>> light.
>>>>>>>>>>         Corresponding files contain stdout/stderr of test agents.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         Andrew.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         On 8/23/23 17:45, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         Hi Andrew,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         I've set up a test rig repository here, and have created
>>>>>>>>>>         configurations for our development testbed based off of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>         examples.
>>>>>>>>>>         We've been able to get the test suite to run manually on
>>>>>>>>>>         Mellanox CX5 devices once.
>>>>>>>>>>         However, we are running into an issue where, when RCF
>>>>>>>>>> starts,
>>>>>>>>>>         the RCF connection times out very frequently. We aren't
>>>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>>         why this is the case.
>>>>>>>>>>         It works sometimes, but most of the time when we try to
>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>         the test engine, it encounters this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>         I've tried changing the RCF port by setting
>>>>>>>>>>         "TE_RCF_PORT=<some port number>" and rebooting the testbed
>>>>>>>>>>         machines. Neither seems to fix the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         It also seems like the timeout takes far longer than 60
>>>>>>>>>>         seconds, even when running "export TE_RCFUNIX_TIMEOUT=60"
>>>>>>>>>>         before I try to run the test suite.
>>>>>>>>>>         I assume the unit for this variable is seconds?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>         Adam
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:19 AM Adam Hassick
>>>>>>>>>>         <ahassick@iol.unh.edu <mailto:ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>             Hi Andrew,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>             Thanks, I've cloned the example repository and will
>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>             setting up a configuration for our development testbed
>>>>>>>>>>             today. I'll let you know if I run into any
>>>>>>>>>> difficulties
>>>>>>>>>>             or have any questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>              - Adam
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>             On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 4:40 AM Andrew Rybchenko
>>>>>>>>>>             <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru
>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
>>>>>>>>>> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 Hi Adam,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 I've published
>>>>>>>>>>                 https://github.com/ts-factory/ts-rigs-sample
>>>>>>>>>>                 <https://github.com/ts-factory/ts-rigs-sample>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/ts-factory/ts-rigs-sample>.
>>>>>>>>>>                 Hopefully it will help to define your test rigs
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>                 successfully run some tests manually. Feel free to
>>>>>>>>>>                 ask any questions and I'll answer here and try to
>>>>>>>>>>                 update documentation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 Meanwhile I'll prepare missing bits for steps (2)
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>                 (3).
>>>>>>>>>>                 Hopefully everything is in place for step (4),
>>>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>>>>                 need to make steps (2) and (3) first.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 Andrew.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 On 8/18/23 21:40, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 Hi Adam,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 > I've conferred with the rest of the team, and we
>>>>>>>>>>                 think it would be best to move forward with mainly
>>>>>>>>>>                 option B.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 OK, I'll provide the sample on Monday for you. It
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>                 almost ready right now, but I need to double-check
>>>>>>>>>>                 it before publishing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>                 Andrew.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 On 8/17/23 20:03, Adam Hassick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 Hi Andrew,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 I'm adding the CI mailing list to this
>>>>>>>>>>                 conversation. Others in the community might find
>>>>>>>>>>                 this conversation valuable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 We do want to run testing on a regular basis. The
>>>>>>>>>>                 Jenkins integration will be very useful for us, as
>>>>>>>>>>                 most of our CI is orchestrated by Jenkins.
>>>>>>>>>>                 I've conferred with the rest of the team, and we
>>>>>>>>>>                 think it would be best to move forward with mainly
>>>>>>>>>>                 option B.
>>>>>>>>>>                 If you would like to know anything about our
>>>>>>>>>>                 testbeds that would help you with creating an
>>>>>>>>>>                 example ts-rigs repo, I'd be happy to answer any
>>>>>>>>>>                 questions you have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 We have multiple test rigs (we call these
>>>>>>>>>>                 "DUT-tester pairs") that we run our existing
>>>>>>>>>>                 hardware testing on, with differing network
>>>>>>>>>>                 hardware and CPU architecture. I figured this
>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>                 be an important detail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>                 Adam
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:44 AM Andrew Rybchenko
>>>>>>>>>>                 <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru
>>>>>>>>>>                 <mailto:andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
>>>>>>>>>> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Greatings Adam,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     I'm happy to hear that you're trying to bring
>>>>>>>>>>                     it up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     As I understand the final goal is to run it on
>>>>>>>>>>                     regular basis. So, we need to make it properly
>>>>>>>>>>                     from the very beginning.
>>>>>>>>>>                     Bring up of all features consists of 4 steps:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     1. Create site-specific repository (we call it
>>>>>>>>>>                     ts-rigs) which contains information about test
>>>>>>>>>>                     rigs and other site-specific information like
>>>>>>>>>>                     where to send mails, where to store logs etc.
>>>>>>>>>>                     It is required for manual execution as well,
>>>>>>>>>>                     since test rigs description is essential. I'll
>>>>>>>>>>                     return to the topic below.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     2. Setup logs storage for automated runs.
>>>>>>>>>>                     Basically it is a disk space plus apache2 web
>>>>>>>>>>                     server with few CGI scripts which help a lot
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>                     save disk space.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     3. Setup Bublik web application which provides
>>>>>>>>>>                     web interface to view testing results. Same as
>>>>>>>>>>                     https://ts-factory.io/bublik
>>>>>>>>>>                     <https://ts-factory.io/bublik>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://ts-factory.io/bublik>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     4. Setup Jenkins to run tests on regularly,
>>>>>>>>>>                     save logs in log storage (2) and import it to
>>>>>>>>>>                     bublik (3).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Last few month we spent on our homework to
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>                     it simpler to bring up automated execution
>>>>>>>>>>                     using Jenkins -
>>>>>>>>>>                     https://github.com/ts-factory/te-jenkins
>>>>>>>>>>                     <https://github.com/ts-factory/te-jenkins>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/ts-factory/te-jenkins>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Corresponding bits in dpdk-ethdev-ts will be
>>>>>>>>>>                     available tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Let's return to the step (1).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Unfortunately there is no publicly available
>>>>>>>>>>                     example of the ts-rigs repository since
>>>>>>>>>>                     sensitive site-specific information is located
>>>>>>>>>>                     there. But I'm ready to help you to create it
>>>>>>>>>>                     for UNH. I see two options here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     (A) I'll ask questions and based on your
>>>>>>>>>>                     answers will create the first draft with my
>>>>>>>>>>                     comments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     (B) I'll make a template/example ts-rigs repo,
>>>>>>>>>>                     publish it and you'll create UNH ts-rigs based
>>>>>>>>>>                     on it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Of course, I'll help to debug and finally
>>>>>>>>>> bring
>>>>>>>>>>                     it up in any case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     (A) is a bit simpler for me and you, but (B)
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>                     a bit more generic and will help other
>>>>>>>>>>                     potential users to bring it up.
>>>>>>>>>>                     We can combine (A)+(B). I.e. start from (A).
>>>>>>>>>>                     What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>                     Andrew.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     On 8/17/23 15:18, Konstantin Ushakov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Greetings Adam,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Thanks for contacting us. I copy Andrew who
>>>>>>>>>>                     would be happy to help
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>                     Konstantin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     On 16 Aug 2023, at 21:50, Adam Hassick
>>>>>>>>>>                     <ahassick@iol.unh.edu> <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>                     <mailto:ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> <ahassick@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     
>>>>>>>>>>                     Greetings Konstantin,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     I am in the process of setting up the DPDK
>>>>>>>>>>                     Poll Mode Driver test suite as an addition to
>>>>>>>>>>                     our testing coverage for DPDK at the UNH lab.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     I have some questions about how to set the
>>>>>>>>>>                     test suite arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     I have been able to configure the Test Engine
>>>>>>>>>>                     to connect to the hosts in the testbed. The
>>>>>>>>>>                     RCF, Configurator, and Tester all begin to
>>>>>>>>>>                     run, however the prelude of the test suite
>>>>>>>>>>                     fails to run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ts-factory.io/doc/dpdk-ethdev-ts/index.html#test-parameters
>>>>>>>>>> <https://ts-factory.io/doc/dpdk-ethdev-ts/index.html#test-parameters>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://ts-factory.io/doc/dpdk-ethdev-ts/index.html#test-parameters>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     The documentation mentions that there are
>>>>>>>>>>                     several test parameters for the test suite,
>>>>>>>>>>                     like for the IUT test link MAC, etc. These
>>>>>>>>>>                     seem like they would need to be set somewhere
>>>>>>>>>>                     to run many of the tests.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     I see in the Test Engine documentation, there
>>>>>>>>>>                     are instructions on how to create new
>>>>>>>>>>                     parameters for test suites in the Tester
>>>>>>>>>>                     configuration, but there is nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>                     user guide or in the Tester guide for how to
>>>>>>>>>>                     set the arguments for the parameters when
>>>>>>>>>>                     running the test suite that I can find. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>                     not sure if I need to write my own Tester
>>>>>>>>>>                     config, or if I should be setting these in
>>>>>>>>>>                     some other way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     How should these values be set?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     I'm also not sure what environment
>>>>>>>>>>                     variables/arguments are strictly necessary or
>>>>>>>>>>                     which are optional.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>                     Adam
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                     --                     *Adam Hassick*
>>>>>>>>>>                     Senior Developer
>>>>>>>>>>                     UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>>>>>>>                     ahassick@iol.unh.edu
>>>>>>>>>>                     <mailto:ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>                     iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>>                     +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 --                 *Adam Hassick*
>>>>>>>>>>                 Senior Developer
>>>>>>>>>>                 UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>>>>>>>                 ahassick@iol.unh.edu
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:ahassick@iol.unh.edu> <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>                 iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>>                 +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>             --             *Adam Hassick*
>>>>>>>>>>             Senior Developer
>>>>>>>>>>             UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>>>>>>>             ahassick@iol.unh.edu <mailto:ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>             iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>>             +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         --         *Adam Hassick*
>>>>>>>>>>         Senior Developer
>>>>>>>>>>         UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>>>>>>>         ahassick@iol.unh.edu <mailto:ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>         iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>>         +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     --     *Adam Hassick*
>>>>>>>>>>     Senior Developer
>>>>>>>>>>     UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>>>>>>>     ahassick@iol.unh.edu <mailto:ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>     iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>>     +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> *Adam Hassick*
>>>>>>>>>> Senior Developer
>>>>>>>>>> UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>>>>>>> ahassick@iol.unh.edu <mailto:ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/> <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *Adam Hassick*
>>>>>>>>> Senior Developer
>>>>>>>>> UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>>>>>> ahassick@iol.unh.edu
>>>>>>>>> iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>>> +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> *Adam Hassick*
>>>>>>>> Senior Developer
>>>>>>>> UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>>>>> ahassick@iol.unh.edu
>>>>>>>> iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>>> +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> *Adam Hassick*
>>>>>>> Senior Developer
>>>>>>> UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>>>> ahassick@iol.unh.edu
>>>>>>> iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>>>> +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Adam Hassick*
>>>>> Senior Developer
>>>>> UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>>> ahassick@iol.unh.edu
>>>>> iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>>> +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Adam Hassick*
>>>> Senior Developer
>>>> UNH InterOperability Lab
>>>> ahassick@iol.unh.edu
>>>> iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>>> +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Adam Hassick*
>>> Senior Developer
>>> UNH InterOperability Lab
>>> ahassick@iol.unh.edu
>>> iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>>> +1 (603) 475-8248
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Adam Hassick*
>> Senior Developer
>> UNH InterOperability Lab
>> ahassick@iol.unh.edu
>> iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>> +1 (603) 475-8248
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> *Adam Hassick*
> Senior Developer
> UNH InterOperability Lab
> ahassick@iol.unh.edu
> iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
> +1 (603) 475-8248
>
>
>

-- 
*Adam Hassick*
Senior Developer
UNH InterOperability Lab
ahassick@iol.unh.edu
iol.unh.edu <https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
+1 (603) 475-8248

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 212419 bytes --]