From: "Zhang, Ke1X" <ke1x.zhang@intel.com>
To: "humin (Q)" <humin29@huawei.com>, "chas3@att.com" <chas3@att.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] app/test: fix LACP handshake overtime
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:33:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <PH7PR11MB5984947D387BE04AC193E95BDC2D9@PH7PR11MB5984.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH7PR11MB5984B4C8FE1FC80E75A2A79CDC569@PH7PR11MB5984.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Hi humin:
Maybe in other occasions, 60 * delay is also not enough.
===================================================
Yes, maybe it is not enough for other occasions, so what value is set in you opinion?
BTW, how about config "conf.update_timeout_ms" for the test?
====================================================================================
conf.update_timeout_ms is 100 default, it is a basic unit , it is used in other place, if I changed the value, the other code logic is changed.
Thanks.
Br
Zhangke
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Ke1X
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 9:28 AM
> To: humin (Q) <humin29@huawei.com>; chas3@att.com; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] app/test: fix LACP handshake overtime
>
> Hi humin:
>
> Thanks for your comments, I test the case, I try to change
>
> for (i = 0; i < 30 && all_slaves_done == 0; ++i) to for (i = 0; i < 32 &&
> all_slaves_done == 0; ++i)
>
> it works good, so I think 60 is enough.
>
> And the "conf.update_timeout_ms" seems to be used as a base unit to
> compute in many places as below:
>
> Test_link_bonding_mode4.c (app\test): return
> conf.update_timeout_ms;
> Test_link_bonding_mode4.c (app\test): old_delay =
> conf.update_timeout_ms;
> Test_link_bonding_mode4.c (app\test): conf.update_timeout_ms =
> 10;
> Test_link_bonding_mode4.c (app\test): for (i = 0; i <
> old_delay/conf.update_timeout_ms * 2; i++) {
> Test_link_bonding_mode4.c (app\test):
> rte_delay_ms(conf.update_timeout_ms);
> Test_link_bonding_mode4.c (app\test): for (j = 0; j <
> conf.long_timeout_ms/conf.update_timeout_ms + 2; j++) {
> Test_link_bonding_mode4.c (app\test):
> rte_delay_ms(conf.update_timeout_ms);
>
> So I didn't change the value, please confirming , many thanks.
>
> BR
> Zhangke
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: humin (Q) <humin29@huawei.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 8:58 AM
> > To: Zhang, Ke1X <ke1x.zhang@intel.com>; chas3@att.com; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/test: fix LACP handshake overtime
> >
> > Hi, Zhang,
> >
> > Why LACP handshake "overtime" in your test?
> >
> > Maybe in other occasions, 60 * delay is also not enough.
> >
> > BTW, how about config "conf.update_timeout_ms" for the test?
> >
> > 在 2022/8/18 13:43, Ke Zhang 写道:
> > > Increase the loop count so that there is a longer threshold time for
> > > the LACP handshake process.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 5e41ab250dfa ("app/test: unit tests for bonding mode 4")
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ke Zhang <ke1x.zhang@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c
> > > b/app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c
> > > index d9b9c323c7..bfdd18cdd1 100644
> > > --- a/app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c
> > > +++ b/app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c
> > > @@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ bond_handshake(void)
> > >
> > > /* Exchange LACP frames */
> > > all_slaves_done = 0;
> > > - for (i = 0; i < 30 && all_slaves_done == 0; ++i) {
> > > + for (i = 0; i < 60 && all_slaves_done == 0; ++i) {
> > > rte_delay_ms(delay);
> > >
> > > all_slaves_done = 1;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-21 7:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-18 5:43 Ke Zhang
2022-09-23 0:58 ` humin (Q)
2022-09-30 1:27 ` Zhang, Ke1X
2022-10-21 7:33 ` Zhang, Ke1X [this message]
2024-04-17 10:25 ` Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=PH7PR11MB5984947D387BE04AC193E95BDC2D9@PH7PR11MB5984.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=ke1x.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=chas3@att.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=humin29@huawei.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).