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 783B542622; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:21:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD60B40265; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:21:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9D740261 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:21:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C2F5C0063; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 04:21:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 23 Sep 2023 04:21:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1695457267; x=1695543667; bh=86ljoqAsAR09B+JI5TNOarpZSB17jWAqVar eDxxjXYc=; b=Q40Tv9kd2A7LtJPIbQJJ9ryr1hs76ubT6nrPzZarnGB236tzV9A zcv1gDDZgQpmsJo24MzSCOwsHupN12wGYKYm4DifuTvKdm8bePyEMl+Bbu2jsuPW EgcGMS+/gNn3zKBh4s0f3G6ekHUV2kN3d9a+rqQaMSPRtaxuTfppNcBUumueo1YO rvN809oZGLkcMX93epmUr0raW7GLL5NCQzjfmpIE9eNIMhmHxCwGJd+4MQDAijcN fbeYqgFdKqKm7/G6b1co2tC4ctcH5aH70NFwGjN+nEBmyOBB5LitQUzcZ33DX3Y+ Byqggekdb3XgeGZhjVxPhiqubDK66Xg3vNg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1695457267; x=1695543667; bh=86ljoqAsAR09B+JI5TNOarpZSB17jWAqVar eDxxjXYc=; b=BFyzkoAMx/5Q4/KDenIDJd5NsyU3wyaxMuevjvv5p8dOCFkrmuR ycUzvjmNG7BYjqZZopQGyY1eY990TikzUoqHOfnM4UgBiL0as4pb7/eeutRdhwbt /xbJ8QEswAF/RhqL1OrE5sSormL5NzCJ9Q38n4kWhaCX+N/UUAaoY0dAxeHWjoTS OWPzE3PzJuzRv+7tc2tDoS/8pfCRPQ89tj2vTguSuP5MvP6Ascp6xXmoJOldBE1f xktD0/kv5TTLs8ngDSUZ3trmBh+OS+MOOO+T9atHfrMv5QYn2TFbUNIOUAP9bEYY /AVPtxP1LwuWoXIES6sNlLLRN8yH+3ORGOw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedviedrudeltddgtdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefftdeuhfehvdekleelveffvdelhfelhedvgedtvddvudeuieev tdfgjedvudegfeenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 04:21:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Cc: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , Ferruh Yigit , anatoly.burakov@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] make file prefix unit test more resilient Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:21:04 +0200 Message-ID: <4113725.VLH7GnMWUR@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20230914104215.71408-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <11510039.CDJkKcVGEf@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 22/09/2023 15:23, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 02:57:32PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 20/09/2023 12:09, Bruce Richardson: > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 12:00:08PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:42=E2=80=AFPM Bruce Richardson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When examining the IOL testing failures for patch series [1], I o= bserved > > > > > that the failures reported were in the eal_flags_file_prefix unit= test. > > > > > I was able to reproduce this on my system by passing an additional > > > > > "--on-pci" flag to the test run, since the log to the test has er= rors > > > > > about device availability. Adding the "no-pci" flag to the indivi= dual > > > >=20 > > > > Something is not clear to me. > > > >=20 > > > > While I understand that passing "no-pci" helps avoiding the issue (= as > > > > described below), I have some trouble understanding this passage > > > > (above) with "--on-pci". > > >=20 > > > That's a typo for no-pci. When I ran the test on my system with the m= ain > > > process using no-pci, I was able to reproduce the issue seen in the I= OL > > > lab. Otherwise I couldn't reproduce it. > > >=20 > > > > How did you reproduce the issue? > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > > test commands used by the unit tests fixed the issue thereafter, > > > > > allowing the test to pass in all cases for me. Therefore, I am > > > > > submitting this patch in the hopes of making the test more robust= , since > > > > > the observed failures seem unrelated to the original patchset [1]= I > > > > > submitted. > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=3D29406 > > > > > > > > > > Bruce Richardson (1): > > > > > app/test: skip PCI bus scan when testing prefix flags > > > > > > > > > > app/test/test_eal_flags.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > >=20 > > > > Iiuc, the problem is that the file_prefix unit test can fail if any > > > > DPDK subsystem forgets to release some memory and some hugepages are > > > > left behind at the cleanup step. > > > > Passing --no-pci as you suggest hides issues coming from PCI driver= s. > > > >=20 > > > > This is something I tried to fix too, with > > > > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=3D29288 though= my > > > > fix only handles a part of the issue (here, the ethdev drivers). > > > >=20 > > > > Another way to make the file prefix more robust would be to remove = the > > > > check on released memory, or move it to another test. > > > >=20 > > > I actually think the test is a good one to have. Also, taking in your= patch > > > to help with the issue is a good idea also. > > >=20 > > > I'd still suggest that this patch be considered anyway, as there is n= o need > > > to do PCI bus scanning as part of this test. Therefore I'd view it as= a > > > harmless addition that may help things. > >=20 > > I'm hesitating. > > This test is checking if some memory is left, and I think it is sane. > > If we add --no-pci, we reduce the coverage of this check. > >=20 > > Now that the root cause is fixed by David in ethdev > > (https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230821085806.3062613-4-d= avid.marchand@redhat.com/) > > we could continue checking memory freeing with PCI drivers. > > So I tend to reject this patch. > >=20 > > Other opinions? > >=20 > No objection to this patch being rejected if not necessary. >=20 > However, I'd question if the normal case is actually checking for freeing > memory in PCI drivers. I suspect that in EAL cleanup we delete all files = we > use, irrespective of whether the mappings are still in use. Then when the > process exits the hugepages will be completely freed back - even if some > components leaked memory. I believe this case is checking for correct EAL > cleanup of hugepage files, not for any memory leaks, and in that regard > omitting some components should make no difference. You're right, that's why I'm hesitating. =46ortunately it helped to discover a memory leak. Do we want to add a new specific test for memory leaks, or is it OK to have it in this one?