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 872284416A; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:36:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E65F410E8; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:36:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pf1-f182.google.com (mail-pf1-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F229740EAB for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:36:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf1-f182.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7025c5e6b94so811590b3a.0 for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2024 06:36:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1717681010; x=1718285810; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=hGdVlwP8b8+4TvgCEGFfkOy17fa4+Af/DZWmVX1++Mc=; b=Qecxg1jktd3GhVEsK3sV5Be1ds12J39HGG5juy5IjFbb1Kvcz4/4QzWmN5tDU2U/Jx +J4EPGDWxbkqzC9ORKz9v5wONEhheZDJa3sP1lGPgJ43vBji7tInsu4PqaVzcTK3z5J+ EJfsJLaLnZyX/UMzYvs4gDmYUiveZud2rG428= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717681010; x=1718285810; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hGdVlwP8b8+4TvgCEGFfkOy17fa4+Af/DZWmVX1++Mc=; b=r1/L/IbtsBE3toE5Rk8ybuvFDqoUCyuRMbFxgi8Pl5/ifz7x0XQe7VT8fJg5WFsoNg dbrTkN4Xj9jeQDPiGNtiBC+i3nzrAvRycO72P9WxeGOk1nOY2ecI4OvyiEwmEVvAtFr3 /eCuSm6HSnp6FCg8zyiMXDasLZi5qZANBCPSgO7VeKxEGP0Ck+0n1ytv+/n7LQHrYC7d 0n7di2B8L3Fi4Iva1lreK/qliHJtIhVs7XZyhKRg97RMtd0KpV5wjyG8J6b2jvLSCwxG 9Rtj7yl73lqOurwq/zstrc000JUeIQk2y/tN/uGHMdlODrqwH8dcJ13Cm8jAS0oyeTZE adbQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWXklYRzMKEfPuIjPkA01EPjhfcZ3NkT5S0GCYzQ8JDONOHdi0qD/peDAr+ycoUnN1E1qbfqfQtf3yjZ4I= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxKdOuWjXvxmLDBmpvX7ioemhlODeMNoZ4UkPeZXqunpDutyLqv mE/SlqQOfY8tK6rt+qmaH/oz+v8C4dGF+3YupXuODjikg3WndVBk3qNjei2S88C2+PJEq/45X9R iwRjOPiPAAHwuqjXHgYIM4ETv6ZNRjYPQWwwnHg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHPEE0V3BtALuQ1YEjmH2lEMOKnRZefGmTxn/jAm5bSChCilWuLLphcMMx6S8y3/lzsGskZTvqSQC4WOA3vY2c= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:1f04:b0:1b2:b1cd:14e3 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1b2b716e6e9mr4475193637.51.1717681010127; Thu, 06 Jun 2024 06:36:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240301155416.96960-1-juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech> <20240411084829.64984-1-juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech> In-Reply-To: From: Jeremy Spewock Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:36:38 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] dts: skip test cases based on capabilities To: Patrick Robb Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Juraj_Linke=C5=A1?= , thomas@monjalon.net, Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, paul.szczepanek@arm.com, npratte@iol.unh.edu, dev@dpdk.org, Luca Vizzarro Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:55=E2=80=AFAM Patrick Robb wro= te: > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:44=E2=80=AFPM Luca Vizzarro wrote: >> >> >> In my testing of Jeremy's patches which depend on this one ("Add second >> scatter test case"), I've discovered that the Intel E810-C NIC I am >> using to test does not automatically show "RX scattered packets: on". >> But I've noticed it does if the MTU is set to something big like 9000. >> >> I've tested a change of this by adding: >> >> self.set_port_mtu(0, 9000) >> > + rxq_info =3D self.send_command(command) >> self.set_port_mtu(1, 9000) >> >> And it seems to work alright. I've also tested this specific change with >> Mellanox NICs and it didn't seem to affect them at all. No errors or >> problems and they still showed "RX scattered packets: off" as expected. >> >> The `set_port_mtu` method comes from Jeremy's patch... >> >> > > Hi Jeremy, > > Sounds like Luca's way ahead of me here, but I wanted to note that I did = run from the capabilities patch + Jeremy's new Scatter patch, across these = NICs: > > Mellanox CX5 > Broadcom 57414 25G > Broadcom P2100G > Intel XL710 40G > > And in call cases scatter_mbuf_2048 skips, and scatter_mbuf_2048_with_off= load runs. > > The 2nd case passed in all cases, excluding the XL710 where it errors wit= h "Test pmd failed to set fwd mode to mac." I can double check that to ensu= re there was no setup error on my part, but I think the more interesting pa= rt is the skip on the non-offload testcase, as I recall Jeremy saying that = the XL710 was expected to natively support scatter and run the first testca= se. The "failing to set forwarding mode" is strange, I assume this is likely because of another issue that Luca noted which was some Intel NICs taking longer to start testpmd and the timeout not being long enough to allow for proper startup. If this is the case it would have essentially "poisoned" the testpmd output buffer and caused all of the verification steps of subsequent commands to fail. This should be fixed in the new series of my patch that increases this timeout to 5 seconds. > > I can do a rerun, adding in the MTU modifier, and see if the same adjustm= ent happens as with the E810 as Luca describes.