[PATCH v5 0/6] replace rte atomics with GCC builtin atomics

[Patrick Robb]

Thanks David, Tyler,

I ran the next-net-intel branch through DTS with the nic utilizing the
ixgbe driver, and everything is passing now. When this reaches the main
repo I will return the nic in question to UNH CI testing.

Best,
Patrick

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 5:37 PM Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla at linux.microsoft.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 10:53:22AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > Hello Patrick,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:00 PM Patrick Robb <probb at iol.unh.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > I want to report a possible regression from this patch series seen
> from CI testing on our Intel 82599ES 10G NIC, which we failed to report to
> patchwork when this initially went under CI due to a bug in our Jenkins
> reporting scripts. Use of the ixgbe driver appears to be affected. Tyler I
> apologize for the issues seen with reporting. We've made some temporary
> changes to avoid this happening again, and are currently reworking our
> reporting process entirely to provide greater reliability.
> > >
> > > Here is a DTS snippet showing the issue, and the full log for the
> failing virtio_smoke test can be downloaded here:
> https://dpdkdashboard.iol.unh.edu/results/dashboard/patchsets/26560/
> > >
> > > 06/06/2023 18:22:58                TestVirtioSmoke: Start send packets
> and verify
> > > 06/06/2023 18:22:58                         tester: ifconfig
> enp134s0f0 mtu 9000
> > > 06/06/2023 18:22:58                         tester:
> > > 06/06/2023 18:42:59                TestVirtioSmoke: Test Case
> test_virtio_pvp Result FAILED: TIMEOUT on port start 0
> > > 06/06/2023 18:42:59                TestVirtioSmoke: port start 0
> > >
> > > ixgbe_dev_wait_setup_link_complete(): IXGBE link thread not complete
> too long time!
> > > ixgbe_dev_wait_setup_link_complete(): IXGBE link thread not complete
> too long time!
> > > ixgbe_dev_wait_setup_link_complete(): IXGBE link thread not complete
> too long time!
> > >
> > > We initially took this Intel10G testing offline to investigate as we
> thought it was a lab infra failure. Obviously that wasn't the case, so
> ideally we will bring this back online when appropriate. But, I don't want
> to do so right now and start failing everyone's patchseries which are
> obviously unrelated to this. Comments on this are welcome, otherwise of
> course I will just return this test coverage to our CI when the state of
> the git tree allows for it.
> > >
> > > Apologies for the missing report and the timeline on this. We are
> taking action to deliver results more reliably going forward.
> >
> > (reduced the cc list a bit)
> >
> > This is probably the same issue than what was reported by Intel
> > validation: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1249
> >
>
> Thanks David
>
> I should have read the next thread in the mail chain before replying.
>
> > A fix has been merged in next-net-intel, it will reach the main repo
> soon.
> >
> https://git.dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-net-intel/commit/?id=fe4ce0aee766969a0e27fe28ced8ee7c761a2c4e
>
> Patrick please let me know if after this integration I still need to
> investigate further.
>
> Thanks
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Marchand
>


-- 

Patrick Robb

Technical Service Manager

UNH InterOperability Laboratory

21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824

www.iol.unh.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/attachments/20230628/3b3a1f71/attachment-0001.htm>