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 08CFC41D54; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:10:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBCE40C35; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:10:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55DB6400EF; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:10:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052753200902; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:10:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:10:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=fm1; t=1677183038; x= 1677269438; bh=n9M/UvCqN5kG9tGr8mE4vFtudJZpJ2FZPk6gHK75rVQ=; b=U LknFgD5fVobLq1SR1yZZKqsKB+XFZ7FXlfpHISHT9QFHCJNnfDmbw4cJrrcOqbTB i+ic9YLCzdkGycJ5nEliflmEwxTToypHAKQ6PlaCt2eei51fHvzNA6/6StjgSeE5 n2WrsXBH7+8OQRkOdvIWXE/6q+cr9l3s+P/YRj4YpsNPPhyA5DxA8yFoDYEa0VJC 912NEd4PU/V8rIDN1noTOkJV4jKeBg7u8WYPCHzTqNNbD08wqea6h5stZyrdmEgB wE0LwKN6IAeqLGybdPWNwhMUkYEYdyVO+zM5K03qC72eF5xV2mhhgDNmtGNKbSk+ XfTcoM/7Af+yZt2epPmfQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :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=fm1; t=1677183038; x= 1677269438; bh=n9M/UvCqN5kG9tGr8mE4vFtudJZpJ2FZPk6gHK75rVQ=; b=f UgHBoIMvLqi0nZnVQ6cT5FpZ6kyS0EL47lQ5nETt3vb+GA5O3YCKE2a7OwaLmKpn j3OlBwAoFz/+1BXaB6UEy/SulrYfpxay1hiBW1Q7zTpI3TsNL/wbVQ+TKgWs195B 15VT4/ZrfTbWlwFTsDafb9puWMUBNMqR4vXm03CgFOMbuHsEidJDArmhmL6uVl4O VprcQ0zPD9Jvp3A15/DXsR4k+W1oYjgvus1AQVKpXgqJ/Sq5j7hqSS5CStWQIW+W JaK4nkL8sO5uA6N2kqzSOdDfiQJ1pNBqxufo9XOPvggrcZD3qCvpYa8PoyDWDBZl XWkQ77zSgVjjx5m4yXoeA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudekuddgudeftdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhho mhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdejieeifeehtdffgfdvleetueeffeehueejgfeuteeftddt ieekgfekudehtdfgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:10:36 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Van Haaren, Harry" , dev@dpdk.org Cc: David Marchand , "dev@dpdk.org" , "dpdklab@iol.unh.edu" , "ci@dpdk.org" , "Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com" , "mattias. ronnblom" , Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , Tyler Retzlaff , Aaron Conole , Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] test/service: fix spurious failures by extending timeout Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:10:35 +0100 Message-ID: <4132916.ZDofJx8uAJ@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20221006081729.578475-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 03/02/2023 16:12, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 03:03:38PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > From: Van Haaren, Harry > > > > > > > > > > The timeout approach just does not have its place in a functional test. > > > > Either this test is rewritten, or it must go to the performance tests > > > > list so that we stop getting false positives. > > > > Can you work on this? > > > > > > I'll investigate various approaches on Thursday and reply here with suggested > > > next steps. > > > > I've identified 3 checks that fail in CI (from the above log outputs), all 3 cases > > Have different dlays: 100 ms delay, 200 ms delay and 1000ms. > > In the CI, the service-core just hasn't been scheduled (yet) and causes the "failure". > > For me, the question is - why hasn't the service-core been scheduled? Can > we use sched-yield or some other mechanism to force a wakeup of it? Harry, you didn't reply to this question please.