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 9CDD6425EF; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:00:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B662410D0; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:00:24 +0200 (CEST) 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 3490C4027B for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:00:23 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1695204022; 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=quznmjIN1OW/OM3S3s5Sa8dgKNHXE4j6GjIwkoYSQb8=; b=FGrtyAchp+W0usj/unRoJz1+RIEamPvwEwqoQsTqJMXLa1L77a15CXIjtLHadD04AOMena sJZ9w1cwbaDF4sf+uheLqbBLL6psn2H3YnQW/R9EzwauoDOWwsyJezKezFUUzMNnsmFSDa yfr9p4ptYjA4bz5x1qgYi7+mBMg/q4c= Received: from mail-lj1-f199.google.com (mail-lj1-f199.google.com [209.85.208.199]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-348-4QF90g93PiSXC29t7C0DLQ-1; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 06:00:21 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4QF90g93PiSXC29t7C0DLQ-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f199.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2bbc1d8011dso81894031fa.1 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 03:00:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695204020; x=1695808820; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=quznmjIN1OW/OM3S3s5Sa8dgKNHXE4j6GjIwkoYSQb8=; b=RkUgjSlntKeMxJF/GHywoJ756v92UNMYZeHGCmCaJY3SR8S5tPbYf2ybu8nRVL/AoN IfWQw6I3f+mL1KHOVOlz2iEQZs2FKKBRUNwD5CchdzklHU7R4Yb+xOaXJKzyHhgJiYti zABCMuAiGxL2xu/Q/30CjKahwY2f+enWzAsWMG42/tPaL4eaezF48hhQaKu0cO6xT+0X scMmnGREeI0wT4v7YH58ZKSCDpInNzg0QmzrgCTxgzUc7c33hsxJVwEWgs+KHR/6gjKh 45MFcmODDggKxBNHG9nOuTw4Ku/bbiEgmH7rYaD3skvxOlbfLuPf3eVUU7d5vFzwWulA DezA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwSDfwxIGED3jT/FAouuf/EPYcR93WouFQvSijHxT7Wg1McI7ci DEZf7hhCjgvqv6F7RhJJSKvrLwhaARY/zsTIeC2YHpSvcIL8wKMsyZIlwgpOW1m5TyxB1ZDlouT +IbcN8lowReNRYoglQAY= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:80d9:0:b0:2bd:133c:58ff with SMTP id r25-20020a2e80d9000000b002bd133c58ffmr1621036ljg.48.1695204019896; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 03:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGB5SDnldt6sz4X9wS46U4ARbIhBFLuLJDqcv5jXTYhLlSgygSOzLXDjlm5WKp6wY8xSebVNAMPzQqh3o0dylc= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:80d9:0:b0:2bd:133c:58ff with SMTP id r25-20020a2e80d9000000b002bd133c58ffmr1621018ljg.48.1695204019608; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 03:00:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230914104215.71408-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20230914104215.71408-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:00:08 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] make file prefix unit test more resilient To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , Ferruh Yigit , Thomas Monjalon X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:42=E2=80=AFPM Bruce Richardson wrote: > > When examining the IOL testing failures for patch series [1], I observed > that the failures reported were in the eal_flags_file_prefix unit test. > I was able to reproduce this on my system by passing an additional > "--on-pci" flag to the test run, since the log to the test has errors > about device availability. Adding the "no-pci" flag to the individual Something is not clear to me. While I understand that passing "no-pci" helps avoiding the issue (as described below), I have some trouble understanding this passage (above) with "--on-pci". How did you reproduce the issue? > test commands used by the unit tests fixed the issue thereafter, > allowing the test to pass in all cases for me. Therefore, I am > submitting this patch in the hopes of making the test more robust, since > the observed failures seem unrelated to the original patchset [1] I > submitted. > > [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=3D29406 > > Bruce Richardson (1): > app/test: skip PCI bus scan when testing prefix flags > > app/test/test_eal_flags.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) Iiuc, the problem is that the file_prefix unit test can fail if any DPDK subsystem forgets to release some memory and some hugepages are left behind at the cleanup step. Passing --no-pci as you suggest hides issues coming from PCI drivers. This is something I tried to fix too, with https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=3D29288 though my fix only handles a part of the issue (here, the ethdev drivers). Another way to make the file prefix more robust would be to remove the check on released memory, or move it to another test. --=20 David Marchand