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 E67A4A0524 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 15:34:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42D14069F; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 15:34:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C1740689 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 15:34:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985585C00DE; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 02 Jun 2021 09:34:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= 4knZ/AJvlF2KIYkWBefnk6vexcUG4jSnP5hBWt0Dd/Q=; b=q/cB5ziyQOa6CMQB hoQD69sxWXXhzCkyhcVxvmBGIti7M/xiozE8c9+eMEz00BkWLk9d2Px+ohjcRuzi mdHLObEhppvISz5yMHgR1tFQjhh+r+tqZWBW8r62LUyDX/UItpOBrPPAZIJzNr3K IWwpWMsqQBR1rEM+KjJy3bqc9qGKh/LKPS0cBs4N7yN0PLtU+xL786vWnA0gj5TY sWfp8TLZkHd3IDAF+Tj21VXQgz7yf7tJYYucsmw7EKutKK10ok1YzRR0/eLJ5raw L6UTeYVyn87H0rvzx2vNykRxyJxGTVo04pQX75mqxnJnhzWoIDHdGaOlQYYXg9ad meIvSw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=4knZ/AJvlF2KIYkWBefnk6vexcUG4jSnP5hBWt0Dd /Q=; b=J0bNL4fj/1CO70VP/DAupC7WQt4Z9/RsfeP5UINz79CQG1YkNbAHOJ+WN DHSWiplJoeWH6jERxVWsIdegQ4uNGxCfMKQrAHKESXTboxGWC8h/8+95T9LrJsSt DhPXxVoiO/CRk6jA+bttxLF+AV05M2f4o7G/9uZt+2TgvCA2GXr/8mW5+JQVU5yU vGzhZZ9FC1AFROb+jrcVsrkPVH0+Eb8oSVG5pu8YkFCbF8cGZUVgp1zvF8mskcbi ZMtsmeKQBZc0Aoh5uZAEkWtziwPtm4cpxt8uRkKn0nEwPdwA/2SivJp9zOR1ujBO MnriLui4/gpZWmOOWiraPwZnAK9XA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdeljedgieeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:34:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Lincoln Lavoie Cc: ci@dpdk.org, aconole@redhat.com Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 15:34:13 +0200 Message-ID: <3134763.gfDLbUYdgI@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <101415929.9lNPY92Spv@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] CI reliability 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 Sender: "ci" 02/06/2021 14:55, Lincoln Lavoie: > Hi Thomas, > > The unit tests that fail are nearly always the same specific unit test. > Aaron addressed some of these in a patch that has yet to be applied to DPDK > (cycles_autotest and test_alarm). The other one that we still consistently > fail is func_reentrancy_autotest. It seems like that unit test case can > pass in one run and fail in the next. We have not been able to determine a > root cause for it yet. Maybe that is something the devs could help look > into. Yes definitely we should help and apply fixes in DPDK. > Other failures have been caused by DTS. As part of the plan, we've been > trying to upgrade the DTS deployments on the system, so as the other > changes are made, we can easily pull those in. However, pulling in the new > DTS version has also pulled in bugs that exist in that version. For > example, on the stats test suite, it was changed to not skip > the test_xstats_check_vf when no VMs are configured on the system, so when > the overall test suite was being run, it failed on the bare metal where > there are VMs configured right now. Every time the lab has to upgrade DTS, > we run the risk of introducing these types of failures, which then take > time to debug and fix. For non-transient issues, we should not deploy a new DTS if there are regressions. Is it possible to deploy an older patched version of DTS? > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:27 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > I see a lot of failures in the CI, especially unit tests run in UNH IOL. > > It seems to fail for several weeks but did not investigate more. > > What is the cause and what is the plan? > > Should we rely on CI results?