From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f53.google.com (mail-ed1-f53.google.com [209.85.208.53]) (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 0771B72 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f53.google.com with SMTP id w14so70300420edv.11 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 05:31:17 -0700 (PDT) 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 :from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1zikJ67AffK4SYsZW9OboFhYXV1A4alMFFJ+ADpbFWg=; b=KaSYHYMgjFcByCKjDs5VCySNTF+wQf+pa55x1ilTWYEWMn0T9l2oSTwZH1GzzobsLI FyTxveR6pVqWCvS9GToCkMSOMhEMlMn2HzMvhXesUfGauXQJNsosUkWGPOlpin3RH8gS E3A2tcCMHyk/jR6fvCytnBrkAtAw1KQOq/ImYtv/TZfqqPgt7B93vAzf4Ef++P0pAQa7 1hlDkUXGnVw5lbe8D0wBTXkiMb3jdile2MZC6pJJKbKAZBRn7rCrcxoX5D9VvopheSUb jMJYasAB+/MpyjcIhV701P+47/o4mOjkmhtoTnjf/yffBFYRX6LZxFUzFXvZGP/s+n07 ZH0g== 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:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1zikJ67AffK4SYsZW9OboFhYXV1A4alMFFJ+ADpbFWg=; b=Mv/46onDJP2doD9U7xRT/TLuqN/HMar9HTAmnB8JM4y+yAHlR2TfGjzHuxHYO8rgLE 0Zh+iHDcCuE1hzfdwgeph2RIwDCu/s6Y6uAaM68B1TAACnniFDFIx81XDSCoHU4p/rU6 ss8CZWCrGPDqbTQ6A3g341c1aszf4Oq+TghQU/Txe6//mK4y6011Bg4fSs7IZMq10Eld D3cJwh0Ow1XVb+0iqkGXtXGsz8QY7Hcd6+l5JOpNslvElVI7m447EX66Di/9x3x+URvN Z6fyFC2dAd/BRZRJ0XSVsGXjSw7hByxzhar/0BQkrLnrkrjPOCqo47e5scNEMECu/pVu YWKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533tpQC5Y7k3MoOI43Z4Drh0j509jaSFVjs6FKXIrend1jsRX0Sk MQBmAYYDA8c++G3z15CLmyLywg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxi46f/SYj75Yt3Yy/2kDF39As10dAkLdcZClZbh3H1iEZR56oj+GzQvw9OKPF/w9eXY4PesQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c005:: with SMTP id e5mr28616751ejz.480.1634560259333; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 05:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.120.18.87] ([84.17.46.26]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g7sm857795edk.13.2021.10.18.05.30.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Oct 2021 05:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9ae482b2-90e1-8e4c-7b98-9de3072bd242@tessares.net> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:30:58 +0200 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/91.1.2 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] selftests: mptcp: more stable simult_flows tests Content-Language: en-GB From: Matthieu Baerts To: Mat Martineau , Paolo Abeni Cc: mptcp@lists.linux.dev References: <9d66028a72b6807d4dc3397bb70f028cbc78161d.1634310418.git.pabeni@redhat.com> <32692122-28e1-4028-36c4-43649e2fa629@linux.intel.com> <1fe3d619-370f-d5bb-6d6f-af6890f9fc43@tessares.net> In-Reply-To: <1fe3d619-370f-d5bb-6d6f-af6890f9fc43@tessares.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 18/10/2021 12:24, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > Hi Paolo, Mat, > > On 16/10/2021 02:12, Mat Martineau wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Paolo Abeni wrote: >> >>> Currently the simult_flows.sh self-tests are not very >>> stables, expecially when running on slow VM. >>> >>> The tests mesures runtime for transfers on multiple subflows >>> and check that the time is nearby the theoretical maximum. >>> >>> The current test infra introduces a bit of jitter in test >>> runtime, due to multiple explicit delays. Additionally the >>> runtime is measured by the shell script wrapper. On slow >>> VM, the script overhead is measurable and subject to relevant >>> jitter. >>> >>> One solution to make the test more stable would be adding more >>> slack to the expected time; that could possibly hide reall >>> regressions. Instead move the measurement inside the command >>> doint the transfer, and drop most unneeded sleep. > > Thank you for looking at that! > > It is indeed more stable: with a debug kernel and a "slow host", the > test fails almost all the time. Now I got 3 failures in X attempts, not > bad! (and I stopped after the last failure) And X=18 here ;-) And for a maybe better output for the tests results from my previous email: https://paste.centos.org/view/d75b3836 Cheers, Matt -- Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions www.tessares.net