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 F397846756; Thu, 15 May 2025 14:37:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B50B40E4B; Thu, 15 May 2025 14:37:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pl1-f180.google.com (mail-pl1-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8604240E3E for ; Thu, 15 May 2025 14:37:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pl1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-22e331215dbso14176115ad.1 for ; Thu, 15 May 2025 05:37:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1747312666; x=1747917466; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JXXOxJt+xCUQjAmzzLcn25aG5US/yTsZtLfKGmbsoqY=; b=GApdnPqX3OOHzW8MDZvl6fdA5DcCsl/+FLRYKzuXNH7+yroVApn7lV4m9zEaRDNIPO +d0jcZ8K5mYG9xviIdg4bdN6u5mNc/FY26L0gTISSVqLLhhH+4zPd0xsu//IKpmVQfX4 yuDMG539+dfwzYqccCliwkTn0zgk6+dcJ+lJU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1747312666; x=1747917466; h=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=JXXOxJt+xCUQjAmzzLcn25aG5US/yTsZtLfKGmbsoqY=; b=I1FWsDbBiQe9p7kQihLG4cRNssKk6f9xOVVUy3SQRP5FDbIEHo2q3xuddI0Ab0RM/m KXBRTzJ++4zqKlMZpiHjHIR9pKWj9evZhhnZy6AFmlL4GGJajLWE05pxmtwR2CfVXHfI y/titj+QbndTMyu0a/EWsqPwbSR+XvwJbwtYa8fSFsqkrH+Ag3L6c+H59vxcdYQ9wbKD oEwjShT6JnBupVwn4ochEQShJg81AD71mTckIL9UZmNnjqUGYYyweRwdfS0OR9Eiyl2B FqWJhkDbu8uymnwJ2ZnjVa2/fypqcE7Z+HTWlnLzhD+14KwQ8yGWkuD9nsfJoTF5UIJ8 uRRw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUifjWSTQhVOCQx67LDmRRiF9oHH0p3jQa3e1mgmQw62/GYVJwNIb06dTLxAPDtKCfJMLY=@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy0EsPPZyeAft+487w1YMobRDnnZcLcc98ScjDpJZlJ74ZumZ5g FQbNnJSOilczIsCBqTt0Hy61hK05lW2zR3qD3UC9poW+P9eHADXEp4UKnSAzim33IR8IqIFppii XC9CSoB+YZwUlrh/33fnaEKdrvusR0PyW085jjHqcyjupO1O2 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvT5NFeI768T4mVLWK4ih8USHPxIeUn2j6Rkf8Rub51CvpcLv6+hjBiEg32No/ pp+AVGSB0kNArpmGYakRc82O/47dYhzNawlf5o0wP9yGxOlizAtXYSUxNAv1HXSbLwdLVBddLOR cu8rISRaPG4wvbcTaAJtzbW6/zCCla1r5xAeCo0vsV7C41sEV5 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFyPr3oGXbgNkzs6j3vJmgPo1BlVl7OSSsaFyzOy4MjXVLr75VAjrpF8G+11SISXtrA1RzCimx05Dp7I2xiLiY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f546:b0:231:7fbc:19f3 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-231b398f88fmr49525315ad.12.1747312666430; Thu, 15 May 2025 05:37:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240322163430.444bed0c@hermes.local> <20240401174624.124d2f2f@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: From: Patrick Robb Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 14:33:05 +0200 X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFsqfMiIouAFSQlYf1Oljs4sv2Qtu83aqyLV54Mf-hCuCE3YpLSANH4YyEs Message-ID: Subject: Re: pcapng_autotest unit test false positive To: David Marchand Cc: Stephen Hemminger , dev , Aaron Conole , ci@dpdk.org, Cody Cheng Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb654006352bee67" 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 --000000000000cb654006352bee67 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Okay, I'll make a ticket for us to look at this again and raise it at the CI meeting this morning. Thanks for the heads up. On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 8:59=E2=80=AFAM David Marchand wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:46=E2=80=AFAM Stephen Hemminger > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:26:44 -0400 > > Patrick Robb wrote: > > > > > Another idea - maybe multiple timestamps are gathered from different > > > CPU registers during the same test, and they are misaligned for that > > > reason. Maybe we can try reducing the cores for each unit test to 1 > > > and checking whether the issue persists. > > > > TSC is expected to be sync'd between cores. But of course packets can > > arrive out of order on different cores. > > Just a note that there was one more occurence of this false positive toda= y. > https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/33170/ > > > -- > David Marchand > > --000000000000cb654006352bee67 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Okay, I'll make a ticket for us to look at this again = and raise it at the CI meeting this morning. Thanks for the heads up.
=
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 8:59=E2=80=AFAM David Marchand <= david.marchand@redhat.com&= gt; wrote:
On Tu= e, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:46=E2=80=AFAM Stephen Hemminger
<stephen= @networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:26:44 -0400
> Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>
> > Another idea - maybe multiple timestamps are gathered from differ= ent
> > CPU registers during the same test, and they are misaligned for t= hat
> > reason. Maybe we can try reducing the cores for each unit test to= 1
> > and checking whether the issue persists.
>
> TSC is expected to be sync'd between cores. But of course packets = can
> arrive out of order on different cores.

Just a note that there was one more occurence of this false positive today.=
https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchs= ets/33170/


--
David Marchand

--000000000000cb654006352bee67--