All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 3/5] selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, fix test timeout
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 12:59:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <df1d9ec2-783a-09f4-29d7-544d20d74465@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180530192942.4ahcaxupbhfkopl4@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On 05/30/2018 12:29 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:56:09PM +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote:
>> In order to reduce runtime of tests, recently timout for select() call
>> was reduced from 1sec to 10usec. This was causing many tests failures.
>> It was caught with failure handling commits in this series.
>>
>> Restoring the timeout from 10usec to 1sec
>>
>> Fixes: a18fda1a62c3 ("bpf: reduce runtime of test_sockmap tests")
>> Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
>> index 64f9e25c451f..9d01f5c2abe2 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
>> @@ -345,8 +345,8 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
>>  		if (err < 0)
>>  			perror("recv start time: ");
>>  		while (s->bytes_recvd < total_bytes) {
>> -			timeout.tv_sec = 0;
>> -			timeout.tv_usec = 10;
>> +			timeout.tv_sec = 1;
>> +			timeout.tv_usec = 0;
> 
> I've applied the set, but had to revert it, since it takes too long.
> 
> real	1m40.124s
> user	0m0.375s
> sys	0m14.521s
> 

Dang, I thought it would be a bit longer but not minutes.

> Myself and Daniel run the test semi-manually when we apply patches.> Adding 2 extra minutes of wait time is unnecessary.

Yep.

> Especially since most of it is idle time.
> Please find a way to fix tests differently.
> btw I don't see any failures today. Not sure what is being fixed
> by incresing a timeout.
> 

Calling these fixes is a bit much, they are primarily improvements.

The background is, when I originally wrote the tests my goal was to
exercise the kernel code paths. Because of this I didn't really care if
the tests actually sent/recv all bytes in the test. (I have long
running tests using netperf/wrk/apached/etc. for that) But, the manual
tests do have an option to verify the data if specified. The 'verify'
option is a bit fragile in that with the right tests (e.g. drop)
or the certain options (e.g. cork) it can fail which is expected.

What Prashant added was support to actually verify the data correctly.
And also fix a few cgroup handling and some pretty printing as well.
He noticed the low timeout causing issue in these cases though so
increased it.

@Prashant, how about increasing this less dramatically because now
all cork tests are going to stall for 1s unless perfectly aligned.
How about 100us? Or even better we can conditionally set it based
on if tx_cork is set. If tx_cork is set use 1us otherwise use 200us
or something. (1s is really to high in any cases for lo)

Also capturing some of the above in the cover letter would help
folks understand the context a bit better.

Thanks!
John

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: john.fastabend at gmail.com (John Fastabend)
Subject: [PATCH bpf v3 3/5] selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, fix test timeout
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 12:59:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <df1d9ec2-783a-09f4-29d7-544d20d74465@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180530192942.4ahcaxupbhfkopl4@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On 05/30/2018 12:29 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:56:09PM +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote:
>> In order to reduce runtime of tests, recently timout for select() call
>> was reduced from 1sec to 10usec. This was causing many tests failures.
>> It was caught with failure handling commits in this series.
>>
>> Restoring the timeout from 10usec to 1sec
>>
>> Fixes: a18fda1a62c3 ("bpf: reduce runtime of test_sockmap tests")
>> Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7 at lab.ntt.co.jp>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
>> index 64f9e25c451f..9d01f5c2abe2 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
>> @@ -345,8 +345,8 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
>>  		if (err < 0)
>>  			perror("recv start time: ");
>>  		while (s->bytes_recvd < total_bytes) {
>> -			timeout.tv_sec = 0;
>> -			timeout.tv_usec = 10;
>> +			timeout.tv_sec = 1;
>> +			timeout.tv_usec = 0;
> 
> I've applied the set, but had to revert it, since it takes too long.
> 
> real	1m40.124s
> user	0m0.375s
> sys	0m14.521s
> 

Dang, I thought it would be a bit longer but not minutes.

> Myself and Daniel run the test semi-manually when we apply patches.> Adding 2 extra minutes of wait time is unnecessary.

Yep.

> Especially since most of it is idle time.
> Please find a way to fix tests differently.
> btw I don't see any failures today. Not sure what is being fixed
> by incresing a timeout.
> 

Calling these fixes is a bit much, they are primarily improvements.

The background is, when I originally wrote the tests my goal was to
exercise the kernel code paths. Because of this I didn't really care if
the tests actually sent/recv all bytes in the test. (I have long
running tests using netperf/wrk/apached/etc. for that) But, the manual
tests do have an option to verify the data if specified. The 'verify'
option is a bit fragile in that with the right tests (e.g. drop)
or the certain options (e.g. cork) it can fail which is expected.

What Prashant added was support to actually verify the data correctly.
And also fix a few cgroup handling and some pretty printing as well.
He noticed the low timeout causing issue in these cases though so
increased it.

@Prashant, how about increasing this less dramatically because now
all cork tests are going to stall for 1s unless perfectly aligned.
How about 100us? Or even better we can conditionally set it based
on if tx_cork is set. If tx_cork is set use 1us otherwise use 200us
or something. (1s is really to high in any cases for lo)

Also capturing some of the above in the cover letter would help
folks understand the context a bit better.

Thanks!
John

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: john.fastabend@gmail.com (John Fastabend)
Subject: [PATCH bpf v3 3/5] selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, fix test timeout
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 12:59:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <df1d9ec2-783a-09f4-29d7-544d20d74465@gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20180530195903.u6VdrIoBHDPP3_iuK7EFOEpENsEx0xlwcbvl-Uhc6ZM@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180530192942.4ahcaxupbhfkopl4@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On 05/30/2018 12:29 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018@02:56:09PM +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote:
>> In order to reduce runtime of tests, recently timout for select() call
>> was reduced from 1sec to 10usec. This was causing many tests failures.
>> It was caught with failure handling commits in this series.
>>
>> Restoring the timeout from 10usec to 1sec
>>
>> Fixes: a18fda1a62c3 ("bpf: reduce runtime of test_sockmap tests")
>> Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7 at lab.ntt.co.jp>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
>> index 64f9e25c451f..9d01f5c2abe2 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
>> @@ -345,8 +345,8 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
>>  		if (err < 0)
>>  			perror("recv start time: ");
>>  		while (s->bytes_recvd < total_bytes) {
>> -			timeout.tv_sec = 0;
>> -			timeout.tv_usec = 10;
>> +			timeout.tv_sec = 1;
>> +			timeout.tv_usec = 0;
> 
> I've applied the set, but had to revert it, since it takes too long.
> 
> real	1m40.124s
> user	0m0.375s
> sys	0m14.521s
> 

Dang, I thought it would be a bit longer but not minutes.

> Myself and Daniel run the test semi-manually when we apply patches.> Adding 2 extra minutes of wait time is unnecessary.

Yep.

> Especially since most of it is idle time.
> Please find a way to fix tests differently.
> btw I don't see any failures today. Not sure what is being fixed
> by incresing a timeout.
> 

Calling these fixes is a bit much, they are primarily improvements.

The background is, when I originally wrote the tests my goal was to
exercise the kernel code paths. Because of this I didn't really care if
the tests actually sent/recv all bytes in the test. (I have long
running tests using netperf/wrk/apached/etc. for that) But, the manual
tests do have an option to verify the data if specified. The 'verify'
option is a bit fragile in that with the right tests (e.g. drop)
or the certain options (e.g. cork) it can fail which is expected.

What Prashant added was support to actually verify the data correctly.
And also fix a few cgroup handling and some pretty printing as well.
He noticed the low timeout causing issue in these cases though so
increased it.

@Prashant, how about increasing this less dramatically because now
all cork tests are going to stall for 1s unless perfectly aligned.
How about 100us? Or even better we can conditionally set it based
on if tx_cork is set. If tx_cork is set use 1us otherwise use 200us
or something. (1s is really to high in any cases for lo)

Also capturing some of the above in the cover letter would help
folks understand the context a bit better.

Thanks!
John

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-30 19:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-30  5:56 [PATCH bpf v3 0/5] fix test_sockmap Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56 ` Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56 ` bhole_prashant_q7
2018-05-30  5:56 ` [PATCH bpf v3 1/5] selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, check test failure Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` bhole_prashant_q7
2018-05-30 13:26   ` John Fastabend
2018-05-30 13:26     ` John Fastabend
2018-05-30 13:26     ` john.fastabend
2018-05-30  5:56 ` [PATCH bpf v3 2/5] selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, join cgroup in selftest mode Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` bhole_prashant_q7
2018-05-30  5:56 ` [PATCH bpf v3 3/5] selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, fix test timeout Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` bhole_prashant_q7
2018-05-30 13:31   ` John Fastabend
2018-05-30 13:31     ` John Fastabend
2018-05-30 13:31     ` john.fastabend
2018-05-30 19:29   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-05-30 19:29     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-05-30 19:29     ` alexei.starovoitov
2018-05-30 19:59     ` John Fastabend [this message]
2018-05-30 19:59       ` John Fastabend
2018-05-30 19:59       ` john.fastabend
2018-05-31  4:13       ` Prashant Bhole
2018-05-31  4:13         ` Prashant Bhole
2018-05-31  4:13         ` bhole_prashant_q7
2018-06-01 14:03         ` John Fastabend
2018-06-01 14:03           ` John Fastabend
2018-06-01 14:03           ` john.fastabend
2018-05-30  5:56 ` [PATCH bpf v3 4/5] selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, fix data verification Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` bhole_prashant_q7
2018-05-30  5:56 ` [PATCH bpf v3 5/5] selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, print additional test options Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` Prashant Bhole
2018-05-30  5:56   ` bhole_prashant_q7
2018-05-30 13:32 ` [PATCH bpf v3 0/5] fix test_sockmap John Fastabend
2018-05-30 13:32   ` John Fastabend
2018-05-30 13:32   ` john.fastabend

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=df1d9ec2-783a-09f4-29d7-544d20d74465@gmail.com \
    --to=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.