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 108AE468AA; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 02:50:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24DE4014F; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 02:50:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.loongson.cn (mail.loongson.cn [114.242.206.163]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A31F400EF for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2025 02:50:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from loongson.cn (unknown [117.129.62.125]) by gateway (Coremail) with SMTP id _____8Bxnms73kRof+QPAQ--.949S3; Sun, 08 Jun 2025 08:50:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from [192.168.31.237] (unknown [117.129.62.125]) by front1 (Coremail) with SMTP id qMiowMCxbsUy3kRoc9cPAQ--.53372S3; Sun, 08 Jun 2025 08:49:57 +0800 (CST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------y7BYy8F3NzLIWMf0G0HA1X6r" Message-ID: <24d143d3-4739-457d-bf15-c6224ca21bb0@loongson.cn> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 08:49:54 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Email based retests for the Loongarch lab To: Patrick Robb Cc: ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , David Marchand References: From: zhoumin In-Reply-To: X-CM-TRANSID: qMiowMCxbsUy3kRoc9cPAQ--.53372S3 X-CM-SenderInfo: 52kr3ztlq6z05rqj20fqof0/1tbiAQEHAWhEwOoAbwABsu X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uk129KBj93XoW3Xw47Aw4kWryfuF15uw45urX_yoWfArWxpF WrK3Wayrn8JF17Ar97Jw40v34akr95JFZxta1rJ3y8Crn8Ga4vyrWrtF45u347Crs3W34U Zw40q345Can8AFXCm3ZEXasCq-sJn29KB7ZKAUJUUUU5529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7KY7ZEXa sCq-sGcSsGvfJ3UbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy29KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUyCb4IE77IF4wAF F20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r 1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAF wI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67 AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq 07x20xvEncxIr21l57IF6xkI12xvs2x26I8E6xACxx1lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jrv_JF 1lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvEwIxGrwCj r7xvwVCIw2I0I7xG6c02F41l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr 1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE 14v26r126r1DMIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7 IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6I8E 87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0x ZFpf9x07ULdb8UUUUU= X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------y7BYy8F3NzLIWMf0G0HA1X6r Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Patrick Robb, I'm sorry for the delay. On 2025/5/29 03:36, Patrick Robb wrote: > Hi Min Zhou, > > I saw you order a recheck on the Loongson lab via the email recheck > framework last week. That reminds me that I should check in on the > current status of recheck support at Loongson lab. > > There was some further development on this feature last year, with the > options available to users on the DPDK mailing list explained here: > https://core.dpdk.org/testing/#requesting-a-patch-retest > > So, the default behavior is rechecking patches "as is" given the > commit they were originally applied on, and there is also support for > re-applying to current HEAD of a branch, and specifying a particular > branch to apply the series on before retesting. This is accomplished > with a "rebase" argument as you can see in the link above. > > I'm guessing that you don't currently have support for this rebase > argument, since we haven't synced on it. Can you describe what recheck > functionality is currently available for Loongson? We also need to > update the dpdk.org > > testing page I linked in order to indicate that recheck support > extends beyond UNH and the github robot. > Yes, we don't support the rebase argument. Meanwhile, for the sake of simplicity, the rechecking behavior at Loongson lab is a little different from the default behavior. we recheck the patches on the latest HEAD of the branch selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py script. This behavior is same to that of the first testing for the commit at Loongson lab. It's ok to be consistent with the defualt behavior. Maybe we can support both it and rebase argument after you have synced some infrastructures. > By the way, we haven't heard from you in a CI meeting in a while. Not > a big deal, I know the timezone aspect between Asia, North America, > and Europe is challenging. However, we are going to look at > rescheduling the CI meetings in order to see whether we can find a > timeslot which works better for all the lab maintainers. You'll get a > survey to that end in your mailbox shortly. Thanks! > Yes, timezone is challenging. I will try my best to reply to emails timely from the CI meeting. Best Regards, Min Zhou > On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:20 AM zhoumin wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > Comments inline: > > On Thur, Feb 29, 2024 at 6:09AM, Patrick Robb wrote: >> Hi Zhoumin, >> >> Comments inline: >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:35 AM zhoumin wrote: >> >> Hi Patrick, >> >> I'm sorry for this serious delay. >> >> I do believe that retesting is meaningful and Loongson lab >> should support it. Meanwhile, the email based retest >> framework is wonderful and it is not too hard to integrate >> the retest function into the existed dpdk-ci framework. >> Although I am responsible for the Loongson lab, I'm not >> full-time on it. So, I need some time to support the email >> based retest function in Loongson lab. It may take a few weeks. >> >> >> Perfect! And take the time you need, thanks. > Thanks. I will make it a priority. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 1:54PM, Patrick Robb wrote: >>> And I forgot to mention, you can set up part of this using >>> the dpdk-ci project get_reruns.py script. It polls the Rest >>> API for all comment on patch emails events in a given >>> timeframe, and uses regex to write a json file containing >>> any retest requests from that period. We run this >>> periodically (every 15 minutes) at UNH using Jenkins, but I >>> think you could do this with a cron job or another solution. >>> >>> Just remember to keep bringing the timeframe parameters >>> forward or you will end up consuming a retest request more >>> than once! >>> >>> https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree/tools/get_reruns.py >> >> Thanks for pointing it out. This script is very useful and it >> can help us more easily support the retest function. >> >> But, I got an empty output when I tried to get the retest >> requests since 2023-08-01 as following: >> >> # python3 tools/get_reruns.py -ts 2023-08-01 --contexts >> "iol-compile-amd64-testing,iol-broadcom-Performance,iol-unit-arm64-testing,github-robot" >> { >>     "retests": {}, >>     "last_comment_timestamp": "2024-02-28T02:27:49.500680" >> } >> Or am I using this script wrong? >> >> >> Yes one correction, you should do a space delimited list of >> patchwork test contexts, not a comma delimited list. No quotation >> marks needed. >> >>  # python3 tools/get_reruns.py -ts 2023-08-01 --contexts >> iol-compile-amd64-testing iol-broadcom-Performance >> iol-unit-arm64-testing github-robot > Thanks. I got the expected results. >> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:55 AM Patrick Robb >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Zhoumin, >>> >>> I wanted to reach out to you about the possibility of >>> adding the Loongson lab to the group of labs supporting >>> the email based retest framework. Currently, the UNH >>> Community Lab and also the GitHub Robot are supporting >>> patch retest requests from emails, and we would like to >>> extend that to all the publicly reporting CI labs, if >>> possible. >>> >>> For context, the original >>> announcement:https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/CAC-YWqiXqBYyzPsc4UD7LbUHKha_Vb3=Aot+dQomuRLojy2hvA@mail.gmail.com/ >>> >>> Aaron announcing support for the github robot: >>> https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/f7tedfooq6k.fsf@redhat.com/ >>> >>> And the retest framework definition on the dpdk.org >>> >>> testing page: >>> https://core.dpdk.org/testing/#requesting-a-patch-retest >>> >>> So a format like: >>> >>> Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing, >>> iol-broadcom-Performance, iol-unit-arm64-testing, >>> github-robot >>> >>> Is current accepted, and it would be great if we could >>> add Loongson support to the list too. What we are >>> supporting right now is doing retesting on the original >>> DPDK artifact created for a patch when that patch was >>> submitted. But we are also thinking of adding in >>> rebasing off of tip of branch as a v2 feature. >>> >> I think the stateless retesting is more easily to implement >> the retest function. >> >> I wrote a script to report the CI failures from Loongson lab >> three times a day by fetching the test results from >> patches.dpdk.org >> . >> This script can help me find the CI failures in time. So, >> sometimes I manually triggered the DPDK CI test in Loongson >> lab as a retest for some patches or series when I found there >> is a test failure caused by Loongson lab self. In this case, >> the retest follows the routines of normal test. So, it will >> always do rebasing before applying the patches or series when >> do this kind of retest. >> >> I think it is simpler for Loongson lab to implement the >> retest function. I think it is also feasible to do the >> retesting on the original DPDK artifact created for a patch >> when that patch was submitted. But, I need some times to >> reconstruct the existed routines. >> >> >> Thanks. I figured retest off of latest commit/tip of branch might >> be easier. Going from the original DPDK artifact is easy for UNH >> since we hold onto the original DPDK artifacts for a long time, >> but I realize other labs may not do this. So, if you can only >> support retest off of tip of branch right now, that is okay, we >> just need to ensure we are only triggering that retest when users >> actually request that. I.e. right now if someone submits a >> recheck request according to the format above, the expectation is >> that that retest is from the patch applied onto the branch commit >> which existed at the time when that patch was submitted, not >> latest. So, Loongson should not do anything in that case if the >> lab cannot support it. On the other hand, as you can see in the >> conversation linked below, we are looking to add support for >> retests off of tip of branch (when users request it), and it >> sounds like you can support that. So maybe we can do that support >> first for Loongson. I just want to verify that when a user >> requests a retest with some args included, we are definitely >> retesting according to those args in their retest request. >> > The Loongson lab doesn't hold onto the original DPDK artifacts. > But, we can store the latest commit ID of the guessed branch into > file when CI system firstly tests the submitted patch or series > and then generate the DPDK artifact based on that commit ID if we > need retest the patch or series from the time when that patch was > submitted. So, I estimate that Loongson lab can support this kind > of retest. I figured that requesting a retest with some args can > also be supported if we can parse these args correctly in > get_reruns.py. > >> >> If you can comment on this thread about whether it makes sense >> for the Loongson lab, that helps us make sure we're not going in >> a direction which will cause problems for other labs. Thanks! >> >> https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/CAJvnSUAsxwCZTd_vZgfpGFmiLqsG6icQ1a=Q62F+S7qtkBtRRQ@mail.gmail.com/T/#t >> > Sure, my pleasure. >> >> >> How do you think of it? >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Min Zhou >> >>> Does this sound possible for the Loonson lab? I know you >>> are leveraging the dpdk-ci repo for standing up your CI >>> testing, but I don't know specifically whether that >>> lends itself well towards doing retests later, or if >>> that would be a big technical challenge. Let me know! >>> >>> If it is possible for the Loongson lab, maybe we can >>> discuss in the March 7 CI Testing meeting? >>> >>> >> --------------y7BYy8F3NzLIWMf0G0HA1X6r Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Patrick Robb,

I'm sorry for the delay.

On 2025/5/29 03:36, Patrick Robb wrote:
Hi Min Zhou,

I saw you order a recheck on the Loongson lab via the email recheck framework last week. That reminds me that I should check in on the current status of recheck support at Loongson lab.

There was some further development on this feature last year, with the options available to users on the DPDK mailing list explained here: https://core.dpdk.org/testing/#requesting-a-patch-retest

So, the default behavior is rechecking patches "as is" given the commit they were originally applied on, and there is also support for re-applying to current HEAD of a branch, and specifying a particular branch to apply the series on before retesting. This is accomplished with a "rebase" argument as you can see in the link above.

I'm guessing that you don't currently have support for this rebase argument, since we haven't synced on it. Can you describe what recheck functionality is currently available for Loongson? We also need to update the dpdk.org testing page I linked in order to indicate that recheck support extends beyond UNH and the github robot.

Yes, we don't support the rebase argument. Meanwhile, for the sake of simplicity, the rechecking behavior at Loongson lab is a little different from the default behavior. we recheck the patches on the latest HEAD of the branch selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py script. This behavior is same to that of the first testing for the commit at Loongson lab. It's ok to be consistent with the defualt behavior. Maybe we can support both it and rebase argument after you have synced some infrastructures.
By the way, we haven't heard from you in a CI meeting in a while. Not a big deal, I know the timezone aspect between Asia, North America, and Europe is challenging. However, we are going to look at rescheduling the CI meetings in order to see whether we can find a timeslot which works better for all the lab maintainers. You'll get a survey to that end in your mailbox shortly. Thanks!

Yes, timezone is challenging. I will try my best to reply to emails timely from the CI meeting.

Best Regards,

Min Zhou

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:20 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

Comments inline:

On Thur, Feb 29, 2024 at 6:09AM, Patrick Robb wrote:
Hi Zhoumin, 

Comments inline:

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:35 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

I'm sorry for this serious delay.

I do believe that retesting is meaningful and Loongson lab should support it. Meanwhile, the email based retest framework is wonderful and it is not too hard to integrate the retest function into the existed dpdk-ci framework. Although I am responsible for the Loongson lab, I'm not full-time on it. So, I need some time to support the email based retest function in Loongson lab. It may take a few weeks.


Perfect! And take the time you need, thanks.
Thanks. I will make it a priority.


On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 1:54PM, Patrick Robb wrote:
And I forgot to mention, you can set up part of this using the dpdk-ci project get_reruns.py script. It polls the Rest API for all comment on patch emails events in a given timeframe, and uses regex to write a json file containing any retest requests from that period. We run this periodically (every 15 minutes) at UNH using Jenkins, but I think you could do this with a cron job or another solution. 

Just remember to keep bringing the timeframe parameters forward or you will end up consuming a retest request more than once! 

Thanks for pointing it out. This script is very useful and it can help us more easily support the retest function.

But, I got an empty output when I tried to get the retest requests since 2023-08-01 as following:

# python3 tools/get_reruns.py -ts 2023-08-01 --contexts "iol-compile-amd64-testing,iol-broadcom-Performance,iol-unit-arm64-testing,github-robot"
{
    "retests": {},
    "last_comment_timestamp": "2024-02-28T02:27:49.500680"
}
Or am I using this script wrong?


Yes one correction, you should do a space delimited list of patchwork test contexts, not a comma delimited list. No quotation marks needed.

 # python3 tools/get_reruns.py -ts 2023-08-01 --contexts iol-compile-amd64-testing iol-broadcom-Performance iol-unit-arm64-testing github-robot
Thanks. I got the expected results.


On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:55 AM Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
Hi Zhoumin,

I wanted to reach out to you about the possibility of adding the Loongson lab to the group of labs supporting the email based retest framework. Currently, the UNH Community Lab and also the GitHub Robot are supporting patch retest requests from emails, and we would like to extend that to all the publicly reporting CI labs, if possible. 


Aaron announcing support for the github robot: https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/f7tedfooq6k.fsf@redhat.com/

And the retest framework definition on the dpdk.org testing page: https://core.dpdk.org/testing/#requesting-a-patch-retest

So a format like:

Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance, iol-unit-arm64-testing, github-robot

Is current accepted, and it would be great if we could add Loongson support to the list too. What we are supporting right now is doing retesting on the original DPDK artifact created for a patch when that patch was submitted. But we are also thinking of adding in rebasing off of tip of branch as a v2 feature. 

I think the stateless retesting is more easily to implement the retest function.

I wrote a script to report the CI failures from Loongson lab three times a day by fetching the test results from patches.dpdk.org. This script can help me find the CI failures in time. So, sometimes I manually triggered the DPDK CI test in Loongson lab as a retest for some patches or series when I found there is a test failure caused by Loongson lab self. In this case, the retest follows the routines of normal test. So, it will always do rebasing before applying the patches or series when do this kind of retest.

I think it is simpler for Loongson lab to implement the retest function. I think it is also feasible to do the retesting on the original DPDK artifact created for a patch when that patch was submitted. But, I need some times to reconstruct the existed routines.


Thanks. I figured retest off of latest commit/tip of branch might be easier. Going from the original DPDK artifact is easy for UNH since we hold onto the original DPDK artifacts for a long time, but I realize other labs may not do this. So, if you can only support retest off of tip of branch right now, that is okay, we just need to ensure we are only triggering that retest when users actually request that. I.e. right now if someone submits a recheck request according to the format above, the expectation is that that retest is from the patch applied onto the branch commit which existed at the time when that patch was submitted, not latest. So, Loongson should not do anything in that case if the lab cannot support it. On the other hand, as you can see in the conversation linked below, we are looking to add support for retests off of tip of branch (when users request it), and it sounds like you can support that. So maybe we can do that support first for Loongson. I just want to verify that when a user requests a retest with some args included, we are definitely retesting according to those args in their retest request. 

The Loongson lab doesn't hold onto the original DPDK artifacts. But, we can store the latest commit ID of the guessed branch into file when CI system firstly tests the submitted patch or series and then generate the DPDK artifact based on that commit ID if we need retest the patch or series from the time when that patch was submitted. So, I estimate that Loongson lab can support this kind of retest. I figured that requesting a retest with some args can also be supported if we can parse these args correctly in get_reruns.py.


If you can comment on this thread about whether it makes sense for the Loongson lab, that helps us make sure we're not going in a direction which will cause problems for other labs. Thanks!

Sure, my pleasure.


How do you think of it?

Best Regards,

Min Zhou

Does this sound possible for the Loonson lab? I know you are leveraging the dpdk-ci repo for standing up your CI testing, but I don't know specifically whether that lends itself well towards doing retests later, or if that would be a big technical challenge. Let me know! 

If it is possible for the Loongson lab, maybe we can discuss in the March 7 CI Testing meeting?


--------------y7BYy8F3NzLIWMf0G0HA1X6r--