From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f42.google.com (mail-ed1-f42.google.com [209.85.208.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 970B12F29 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 15:53:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f42.google.com with SMTP id w14so14072200edd.10 for ; Fri, 04 Feb 2022 07:53:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tessares-net.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SNiFjlTvXgTdxODHfmPKjFTP6GDQLqCCZePu8grN5Ok=; b=66QBLFIljaCEcTQA6vHP7R4BhC1zTMJA6+1qL619Iy82aNUgTnCvlaEfQZoVwzFzds QV/0xIhsVvKd1y4NPrBtNRQlDREqTiiJRFAEmbWT0AtGQ0DVrxvhuwsrg/XOvwgrFbR1 DWl3+Nwp5LbLWpOXuumZpRRhdNUhyYhW62bc1DdreeNV1HYamHaCk8Hr+5X8nF25qAI1 DuwNXFVBDDIfDIjm+va2D90xqodGQkdJFXbQGHdRSfKwEHOvVTRabJAZnzvJTLV4MZi0 PjvWlDNMpAbp5E7q35vNTfrBp141p8pF3HF397ZqrNh3J1cOXph146Z/8HOqiBZEZod6 eCog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SNiFjlTvXgTdxODHfmPKjFTP6GDQLqCCZePu8grN5Ok=; b=AmUpIWoUZAzPsXuht3Rq0lSzF7TTXLoComW7OGRuzF8hQwuvxi92/brPDenw1eYQJ8 +hbWbtZO0v9ptdEAq8ArPry1CrCcWYysDdb8z82DP7BQX/6xx4i1vw66+gpGBeG17nR8 +16RnIHQJQgHyfjmTiOKxlz65KcZ2hdNb1yyy/KnkstgXrPbHQRk/EI7ECcSNhjwFVz6 SM5CAiemZDNUP6jRLrxBXYBQNnWfZ2DtsaQRaYsMzMS4Cu/KgwvmNV5iaTtusjB9oAef tr87vqcSixKAdBEW6+okw/DryIBBUVwsO7aTboN4uu39z32W3o/kigisMUqpvivyAgZK N8UA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pWQORM3w5I/MZB+qbE141sgmb9LfXkP7Cl99fTUqLL/VmMB21 p2EIjK/AASUvvgV+3k6hb9Kp5Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIZ0xEc12Qmn+vtiBd/5+RZb05g5nRmFH3gj+FvAueyxgnttoWNULYOO/mpxMosn7r0oK5IA== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c704:: with SMTP id i4mr3568372edq.183.1643990035429; Fri, 04 Feb 2022 07:53:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2a02:578:8593:1200:8033:826e:959c:fd5d? ([2a02:578:8593:1200:8033:826e:959c:fd5d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lf16sm777317ejc.25.2022.02.04.07.53.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Feb 2022 07:53:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <932621cc-7db9-91cb-7daf-e37a4953a43c@tessares.net> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 16:53:54 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 mptcp-next] selftests: mptcp: fix diag instability Content-Language: en-GB To: Paolo Abeni , mptcp@lists.linux.dev References: From: Matthieu Baerts In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Paolo, On 04/02/2022 13:17, Paolo Abeni wrote: > Instead of waiting for an arbitrary amount of time for the MPTCP > MP_CAPABLE handshake to complete, explicitly wait for the relevant > socket to enter into the established status. > > Additionally let the data transfer application use the slowest > transfer mode available (-r), to cope with very slow host, or > high jitter caused by hosting VMs. > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni > --- > v1 -> v2: > - use wait_for_ instead larger sleep > - hopefully better commit message Thank you for the new version! It is being tested in the background. More than 175 attempts in a slow environment with a debug kernel and no failures so far! > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/diag.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/diag.sh > index 2674ba20d524..ff821025d309 100755 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/diag.sh > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/diag.sh- > @@ -119,7 +149,7 @@ for I in `seq 1 $NR_CLIENTS`; do > ./mptcp_connect -p $((I+10001)) -l -w 10 \ > -t ${timeout_poll} 0.0.0.0 >/dev/null & > done > -sleep 0.1 > +wait_local_port_listen $ns $((NR_CLIENTS + 10001)) > > for I in `seq 1 $NR_CLIENTS`; do > echo "b" | \ Do we need the change the last sleep (sleep 1.5) as well? We could wait for a shorter time but well that's only 1.5 second once. And I guess we might need to look for each connection because looking at the last one might not be enough if there was an issue with a previous one. So best to keep the "sleep 1.5"? If yes, do you prefer if the test run for a longer time or can I already apply it? Just in case: Reported-and-tested-by: Matthieu Baerts Closes: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/issues/258 Cheers, Matt -- Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions www.tessares.net