From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40F7F80038; Mon, 23 Dec 2024 16:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734972635; cv=none; b=Yj2tlDxiJhr2pGrEBfGGgXc4BWJ/wzLg2Gfzwxw8yXWhN7G2hjM4k+j+csVQKIiQo/T87c/ypZH6kP5IRamxkmdlHc/iOSODPKk6mfNg9qEgI4ZeahQi++WzAW3vephPleQTpramaN3vhA2+SBeDL1BYbsJBPSr4KG5i48dTBQg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734972635; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1ICzWEYg/SjkAHesfsZYH1PIBuyI7JOU8lzjwZ72/nU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BgNdYluVQbzKkna4KNR1SC9UDikig5a2cNLRyZ1+uGIq3B6jL4RoMsiFOo7wUiL8y7fq1Km9NPk3/F+cPe4XG5wjXqKBmr+bPHbLjWiFfaYMpnlntXnDomYy2LfwYEy7Hs3XXKM07ee5aQkhL+XUazoYPUyilHisEqv6QlR+7Dk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=WM6Djv83; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="WM6Djv83" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 631A4C4CED4; Mon, 23 Dec 2024 16:50:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1734972634; bh=1ICzWEYg/SjkAHesfsZYH1PIBuyI7JOU8lzjwZ72/nU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WM6Djv83uHOx8hadDlR39Pf9KBY1yCY9se48fzkwqMwU3kLAJIKmqpavrHw0GdJ48 f8it/EH/s4+kKbDKMSvkd4yPKvwNi/LMskJWfhRGb7gSBDlUAdpnjFiIonb9ABMu1P ukr8lM/OMuH9AOw8Xer9a+aGTjE6TKJRO/UggXUdPiiD8WgQKkgFE05yrcCKFGQAgK gb8NLJ10W8NcXCHJJRsed9gy+eOk5dZK9QcMxtYUY61BWOj2LZJygW+R62DAZlhpiv uOBL9Sef0HXeFrs42DIvrr8KUCq0JCdnygIeLUKGnWKYp3zqTrwCI/W+IWW/+t1+zZ huhRHvdV+pNOA== Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:50:33 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Willem de Bruijn Cc: Paolo Abeni , Soham Chakradeo , Willem de Bruijn , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Soham Chakradeo Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] selftests/net: packetdrill: import multiple tests Message-ID: <20241223085033.5926d1a6@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <6768dd1289ee2_3cff202943a@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> References: <20241217185203.297935-1-sohamch.kernel@gmail.com> <20241218100013.0c698629@kernel.org> <19df2c4d-c40c-40c5-8fec-bb3e63e65533@redhat.com> <676474a0398f0_1f2e51294ad@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> <20241219180144.7cf5226c@kernel.org> <6768dd1289ee2_3cff202943a@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 22:46:26 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:31:44 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > All three timestamping flakes are instances where the script expects > > > the timestamp to be taken essentially instantaneously after the send > > > call. > > > > > > This is not the case, and the delay is outside even the 14K tolerance. > > > I see occurrences of 20K. At some point we cannot keep increasing the > > > tolerance, perhaps. > > > > I pinned the other services away and gave the packetdrill tester its > > own cores. Let's see how much of a difference this makes. > > The net-next-2024-12-20--03-00 branch will be the first to have this. > > Thanks. It does not seem to resolve the flakes. > > At this point I think the best path is to run them in debug mode to > get coverage, but ignore errors. With the below draft patch, error > output is still logged. For instance: > > # tcp_timestamping_partial.pkt:58: runtime error in recvmsg call: Bad timestamp 0 in scm_timestamping 0: expected=1734924748967958 (20000) actual=1734924748982069 (34111) start=1734924748947958 > # ok 2 ipv6 # SKIP Makes sense. Can we make this XFAIL instead of SKIP, tho? Not exactly accurate but we try to use SKIP for reporting env / setup problems like missing commands. We have FAIL_TO_XFAIL and xfail_on_slow() in the lib for netdev bash tests, already.