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 2596646FF1; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:47:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4EE40A80; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:47:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B1240A7A for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:47:16 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1765291636; 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=C8jVw/43U0u87lAshUeMntsk0cRg0OvYXRPju3u0xv4=; b=AitCsUHCBCJ07H22GXHs+Jok3CPwdRpxVKx+QRzYH258V/2ckXwKllf2qE0DXE4BEetuuQ MDL6Z1oia+MF91ltNlurf5MK4f9pgZPVvxUIGc65+jeH3z7oaoLubfTdTz7dVfYQ3b6JEH +05SRQQugY8koCVcqWH/pcHPBMrShF0= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-360-MW_iv4mZOQ64tljBp4VpVA-1; Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:47:12 -0500 X-MC-Unique: MW_iv4mZOQ64tljBp4VpVA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: MW_iv4mZOQ64tljBp4VpVA_1765291632 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (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-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4B4D1955DD8; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTRH0061144 (unknown [10.22.65.86]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60A4B180049F; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:47:10 +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: <81a3f76a-abfd-4cf3-8b6d-717a76f88205@nvidia.com> (Ali Alnubani's message of "Tue, 9 Dec 2025 12:13:58 +0200") References: <81a3f76a-abfd-4cf3-8b6d-717a76f88205@nvidia.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:47:08 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: Zy8G_tg4dtkuZ4ag3Zfrov8FJBwQeYMlyxn_ABJcJJw_1765291632 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: > 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 server. > > 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 when 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 expired by 30 days. That should reduce the polling here. Just had to deal with a different issue on redirects with a different patchwork server (so I added some new code). > On 12/8/25 4:36 PM, Ali Alnubani wrote: >> Hello Aaron, I hope you're well, >> >> I noticed that pw-ci (patches.dpdk.org) is making repeated Patchwork >> API requests to very old and inactive series IDs. Example: >> >> """ >> 66.187.232.140 - - [08/Dec/2025:00:16:48 +0100] "GET /api/series/25093/ = HTTP/1.1" 200 1351 "-" "(pw-ci) pw-mon-" >> 66.187.232.140 - - [08/Dec/2025:00:36:07 +0100] "GET /api/series/25093/ = HTTP/1.1" 200 1351 "-" "(pw-ci) pw-mon-" >> [..] >> 66.187.232.140 - - [08/Dec/2025:14:16:48 +0100] "GET /api/series/25093/ = HTTP/1.1" 200 1351 "-" "(pw-ci) pw-mon-" >> 66.187.232.140 - - [08/Dec/2025:14:37:25 +0100] "GET /api/series/25093/ = HTTP/1.1" 200 1351 "-" "(pw-ci) pw-mon-" >> 66.187.232.140 - - [08/Dec/2025:15:01:48 +0100] "GET /api/series/25093/ = HTTP/1.1" 200 1351 "-" "(pw-ci) pw-mon-" >> 66.187.232.140 - - [08/Dec/2025:15:17:13 +0100] "GET /api/series/25093/ = HTTP/1.1" 200 1351 "-" "(pw-ci) pw-mon-" >> """ >> >> Is this expected/necessary? Yes, because these series have weird state - they are missing patches, so patchwork is holding them in a waiting state. I'll add the auto-clear code and hopefully that will reduce the amount of outstanding patches we poll. >> Thanks, >> Ali