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 EEC84A04B5 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:05:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E315A140CC1; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:05:54 +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 D335B140CB5 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:05:53 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1610370353; 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=Yl2PPUCO/R4LpqTDl0hQfQej+uxMld5PPSmJbkPf5Ks=; b=adGPYQ2yyEMRZbGopDRM/iljllYmX3s5E/TSjMirXnr8bU4d1c4hDvbQ9Y5yYT1Fn/e65w fEnqp3CMISuD46fSUNoxlB6M7r/C18d1hrjkzAI3vBGyBUZ95BkYvjmqRC26uBCYtvvWuG YkB+CWG1f5MAlK0aLs/9/3wnN+lvxoE= Received: from mail-vk1-f197.google.com (mail-vk1-f197.google.com [209.85.221.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-273-KPBLyN6LPUucqwRlE03mVQ-1; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:04:21 -0500 X-MC-Unique: KPBLyN6LPUucqwRlE03mVQ-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id j67so8081853vkh.15 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 05:04:21 -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=Yl2PPUCO/R4LpqTDl0hQfQej+uxMld5PPSmJbkPf5Ks=; b=ny3utTW6620yPOWhXy370T0+Ce+vCD/ud9VdV7eWWSmmp/OtuzzNPPD3jUgOOIIleZ 68zY6lXWdK5sL4HMwxJgtTgGt6BGWPxcEBw7dFp7rx/Zb7m9GWVVtM38HbiAA6f24QfC 1FArmU5Atf17iipzL+XjZQ5wE24LOt/rJ50vP9Ds6KZSXVn1DMwU5AbLoPHnMkGskUN0 Vyt4IyGFQSH6s7xj5nyP2Vf7UZoyfF99RGlzhxK9+MjXoLpN6hrwkXjwf7M8kr8DUQbB 9yPzH2bONozsCnpr7e6xKQ5dmukmebqtFcM4ymMfq1pb2WybFeZl4L1EJ7/ITpXMGNNM 3rlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530CqNyfkBIn0FBPTTZiGH9J2BzQxhMuxRRJDNIHjbf6L2fj5Khc cFHFaX7/HsXNQtVDLm+SrTLCWbx1GOFFfVje7C1wMpmCGX96Il9QXYSv9CTaRGT+0DFZiTcdFP5 lDGcRNnmFBnsZ/ha+2Q== X-Received: by 2002:a67:6781:: with SMTP id b123mr13531723vsc.10.1610370260953; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 05:04:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLgcP7w33GhbeyYeFQr4a0aweDj2hUXes+Lq6FQi7Gpqc+SwLCrZr1tlrBgPqNOlLjnBWMoxhwqUIPdDhDH/A= X-Received: by 2002:a67:6781:: with SMTP id b123mr13531687vsc.10.1610370260735; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 05:04:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <263e6c13-b87c-2fe0-36ef-ac6aa600c18f@partner.samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <263e6c13-b87c-2fe0-36ef-ac6aa600c18f@partner.samsung.com> From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:04:09 +0100 Message-ID: To: Lukasz Wojciechowski Cc: David Hunt , dev , ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole 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] distributor test failure in UNH CI on ARM 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 Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:37 AM Lukasz Wojciechowski wrote: > I took a look at the logs. The issue appeared in testing big burst in > sanity_test() for burst implementation of distributor. > > My guess is that the cyclic buffer for holding packets returned from > workers might be overflown and dropping some of the packets. It's > designed this way, to hold only 127 latest packets. Older, not collected > on time with rte_distributor_returned_pkts(), are lost. > > Although it's just a guess until I can confirm it with some tests on my > machine. Why would it happen only on ARM? My guess would be an arch-specific synchronisation issue? > > However the guess is possible, so the question is about the > functionality of collecting the returned packets. > We can: > 1) keep it as is and fix tests not to send new packets until old ones > are returned and collected > 2) make changes to the distributor library and change behavior of the > returned packages queue - however this requires some discussion as any > solution will have its drawbacks (e.g. blocking workers until there is a > place to store packets or using more space for the queue) > > Write, what do you think about it. > > Meanwhile I'll try to reproduce the issue The distributor API is flagged as stable, so we can't change its API. Solution 1) seems the way to go, but I'll wait for a rca. -- David Marchand