From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684C9A0A03 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:44:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4044A140D38; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:44:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4710F140D38 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:44:21 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1611045860; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QgYXq99war9+DMgU80tYctjLh1VreHQS0GqaaE6W98c=; b=PA/eZVbahJEao35j9hFxfuBfMZbEGL5r40Q+FTNVB9YcJWqgt7lq0qc4PUvU/Ivuo7pcvM 2IMmTlbznx8feU0fBtRnAtX/6QbzaP5PEfcVvpgFPPel7M2PxUDIgi8dEFpbIzotaB6NDL wplm0YImc+rI/79/f0UiHbBNlHJlmx8= Received: from mail-ua1-f69.google.com (mail-ua1-f69.google.com [209.85.222.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-7-jUzCQUvINfiOlD7pJNka3w-1; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:44:18 -0500 X-MC-Unique: jUzCQUvINfiOlD7pJNka3w-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 20so2849867uar.6 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:44:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QgYXq99war9+DMgU80tYctjLh1VreHQS0GqaaE6W98c=; b=shWi6vm2nOuf85RnkRX/27upeFtJqkOOYBhV7xjdDlHVS+5DMwwy+jzRjRrc+3ZG6D r/VjSOwx0m3Eu6hI4TEe4rvi8ajx770p1yYDyOyoIj9nJBFZrF+WbSogifd8x1xLbO9V Px1wJ+09mn4JaZeWrUjMLhgZZqfbrP0LsEvEFavdxGm7ZcPXOjJhAX/GQgRpSSjTo3Qd 74qi2MloJG6sssg73UHA4ZpLqzt6S4subLswDXX8CCIyjIf+Bw5OI1kJc1x/UHE7uDb2 Hw9muwUu3T80gDOGkOqnWSNuofEwYdHRGseBeQfjqBue1hnFGzC2ATTMfCX1e8TEoT58 pzIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530/KnJ7yI5cXjMgeQry/hBO24R63NsqaNfTMEV2ptqlAq8xQP2+ CKhJuN0nyZD3rZhpWQYZ3msLtsHPrnPg3WfglBWx/EGApJDk++cIyyfjusMKJF0+9ny+sZVZZj4 P/akctDY/elAelCqFow== X-Received: by 2002:a67:6943:: with SMTP id e64mr1849846vsc.10.1611045857546; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:44:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/yLjX3eG20f9I0YA+9uNoCQQvACyr6mCNdt9MvUggcBzQDVYWonXGGISzQxaPte1NQ+vmIfDDUTsAjyU5+mY= X-Received: by 2002:a67:6943:: with SMTP id e64mr1849838vsc.10.1611045857337; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:44:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210119035910.8324-1-l.wojciechow@partner.samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <20210119035910.8324-1-l.wojciechow@partner.samsung.com> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:44:06 +0100 Message-ID: To: Lukasz Wojciechowski Cc: dev , Aaron Conole , ci@dpdk.org, Lincoln Lavoie Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/1] distributor test fix X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:59 AM Lukasz Wojciechowski wrote: > > According to the discussion in this thread: > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=24ecce33-7b77f77c-24ed457c-0cc47a30 > d446-e317a6beb8cfa273&q=1&e=f8bb12df-3698-4bce-a7b7-d72e22b91431&u=https% > 3A%2F%2Finbox.dpdk.org%2Fdev%2FCAOE1vsOehF4ZMOWffpEv%3DQF6YOc5wXtg23PV83B > 9CLiTMn8wQA%40mail.gmail.com%2F%23r > > I was able to reproduce the distributor test failure in the exactly same > way as described, but on x86_64 machine with 32 cores. > So it does not seem to be the problem related to the ARM architecture. > IMO issue occurs when there are many worker threads returning at the same > time packets. > > I was not able to observe the issue on ARM devices, but I used only > machines with 4 cores. So that is max 3 worker cores, > so maximum of 32*3 = 96 packets processed at the same time > which is less than 127 , so the issue cannot occur. > > Can anyone verify this patch on a machine similar to one used in CI lab, > on which the issue occurred? Thanks for looking at it, Lukasz. Unfortunately, I can't reproduce it on my x86 system (26 workers in the test) and I don't have a ARM machine. -- David Marchand