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 8BCB946FF3; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 20:47:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A154067D; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 20:47:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA1740663 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 20:47:43 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1765309663; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=990iEamK+FZDrHgP5hXN53IbhEPhfelMDltteXCuGjA=; b=cO05rbcUcUF8ks4WAIWS/QseL57GcVahudqr/3fw76FkfXkb7BHk+FoQ4oAc4ojtDISF+y rVRUNhLnP5AB095IKVrng5wkiLlyKC2f1U4BXDaJ4HR+WPgwzAODH+psjKDvq6kGBCFPsU YJ5BJpbBexBl/tiVx6KJ3Z78L09zqlg= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-505-r7SM63WCNCu_tLF9PEUCTA-1; Tue, 09 Dec 2025 14:47:39 -0500 X-MC-Unique: r7SM63WCNCu_tLF9PEUCTA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: r7SM63WCNCu_tLF9PEUCTA_1765309659 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8861D18001D6; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTRH0061144 (unknown [10.22.65.86]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 424211800451; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:47:37 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Ali Alnubani Cc: "NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)" , ci@dpdk.org, Dumitru Ceara Subject: Re: Question about pw-ci behavior In-Reply-To: <86b13bb3-976b-4ed1-a9ae-97c2e77340b9@nvidia.com> (Ali Alnubani's message of "Tue, 9 Dec 2025 18:29:32 +0200") References: <81a3f76a-abfd-4cf3-8b6d-717a76f88205@nvidia.com> <86b13bb3-976b-4ed1-a9ae-97c2e77340b9@nvidia.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 14:47:35 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: Nla9rfpTKM23QqiW-riM1sIyvFNZz2bC18y1x-o2M0A_1765309659 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Ali Alnubani writes: > On 12/9/25 6:15 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: > >> Aaron Conole writes: >> >>> Aaron Conole writes: >>> >>>> Ali Alnubani writes: >>>> >>>>> Hello Aaron, >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to share some more statistics, >>>>> >>>>> I see that requests with the pw-ci user agent are making 3,200=E2=80= =934,200 >>>>> requests per hour (approximately 50=E2=80=9370 requests per minute). >>>>> This volume appears excessive and places strain on the Patchwork serv= er. >>>>> >>>>> Would you be able to check if polling frequency can be adjusted? >>>> I'm adding a few things. NOTE that pw-ci marks the series as done whe= n >>>> the states are 'finished' in the status details. But for example the >>>> listed series is still in a 'valid' state for polling. >>>> >>>> I'm going to set it to mark for superceding the patches that are expir= ed >>>> by 30 days. That should reduce the polling here. Just had to deal wi= th >>>> a different issue on redirects with a different patchwork server (so I >>>> added some new code). >>>> >>> BTW, following is the patch I'm testing out right now just for the 'old= ' >>> ones: >>> >> I've added a date check to the patch as well, and am locally testing it. >> When it looks right, I'll push and there will be one last "large" query >> and that should check the dates and expire the outstanding series that >> we poll against. >> > Thank you for helping with this and for the updates, I pushed it live. I hope this cools off the requests. > Regards, > Ali