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 2625BA04B5; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:04:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A9E140CC1; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:04:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CA4140CB5 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:04:25 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1610370265; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Yl2PPUCO/R4LpqTDl0hQfQej+uxMld5PPSmJbkPf5Ks=; b=QDnjXOxVLqP8dmVlPtG1E/eAgNm+a5c3xff/+kVFeGG7+3x5ea9adWIWmBytrEFke+URAN 3Tcqji0QAKSzvtll4A5Ih3gdhdaAKbo48SqYtCY7VjBJSbN/H09KDh07dc7Po8VPPtEEM3 UvTG9c02pSjkzbPiKYIjUlfgaQ3TUVc= Received: from mail-ua1-f72.google.com (mail-ua1-f72.google.com [209.85.222.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-323-ZJw8eKJFMGyRuuRtKrzsdA-1; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:04:21 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ZJw8eKJFMGyRuuRtKrzsdA-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 9so3770706uas.17 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 05:04:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Yl2PPUCO/R4LpqTDl0hQfQej+uxMld5PPSmJbkPf5Ks=; b=NjPKNZhLAsuzCzuRk7SnSVEckjr5hiGuZuvt9QDW0pVpPCGY1INAvp3V47rnZss+YT QjamZGZ4kMlFRV5MQboEdCE2iwxMsKBRltfVaeuyBczP8LyH1LkBuTGTUAal+tiobqSf cOHogioEfJPJ4WjBZhMNUha607HpD/OkN6EAtYHMkTkmJOx63YuX+He+uJ+vNUws77/l k9+vmczDfRTT5euyy/WBYUVhECUKzy7q96le+brZC2K6Loab04TJdhohu2ijiUqIqyf9 ZsNcyZbDzP/LCaWinsx9YJ/SDIzZWwjFdlJBc5B5gk0fBzYd3/3t313KmRpr/QZLAJMb 8ntA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532tlCHXk+UodTw2F6/0OcMw3sRdS/NlUdzUz57JAf4XONOvgyz3 Fj6dlCpG7eHR3qt2w6FuzoZat9+XnjSq9LN4QZjmTSEK9PYjg38vF6zPLeAbtTzMoc3NTpJhw3w cr8EiSIA9kuWTMORMh7U= X-Received: by 2002:a67:6781:: with SMTP id b123mr13531719vsc.10.1610370260950; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 05:04:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLgcP7w33GhbeyYeFQr4a0aweDj2hUXes+Lq6FQi7Gpqc+SwLCrZr1tlrBgPqNOlLjnBWMoxhwqUIPdDhDH/A= X-Received: by 2002:a67:6781:: with SMTP id b123mr13531687vsc.10.1610370260735; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 05:04:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <263e6c13-b87c-2fe0-36ef-ac6aa600c18f@partner.samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <263e6c13-b87c-2fe0-36ef-ac6aa600c18f@partner.samsung.com> From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:04:09 +0100 Message-ID: To: Lukasz Wojciechowski Cc: David Hunt , dev , ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] distributor test failure in UNH CI on ARM 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 Sender: "dev" On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:37 AM Lukasz Wojciechowski wrote: > I took a look at the logs. The issue appeared in testing big burst in > sanity_test() for burst implementation of distributor. > > My guess is that the cyclic buffer for holding packets returned from > workers might be overflown and dropping some of the packets. It's > designed this way, to hold only 127 latest packets. Older, not collected > on time with rte_distributor_returned_pkts(), are lost. > > Although it's just a guess until I can confirm it with some tests on my > machine. Why would it happen only on ARM? My guess would be an arch-specific synchronisation issue? > > However the guess is possible, so the question is about the > functionality of collecting the returned packets. > We can: > 1) keep it as is and fix tests not to send new packets until old ones > are returned and collected > 2) make changes to the distributor library and change behavior of the > returned packages queue - however this requires some discussion as any > solution will have its drawbacks (e.g. blocking workers until there is a > place to store packets or using more space for the queue) > > Write, what do you think about it. > > Meanwhile I'll try to reproduce the issue The distributor API is flagged as stable, so we can't change its API. Solution 1) seems the way to go, but I'll wait for a rca. -- David Marchand