From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, davem@davemloft.net
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
shuah@kernel.org, willemb@google.com,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: drv-net: gro: signal over-coalescing more reliably
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2026 09:49:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <willemdebruijn.kernel.ee6597e4f7af@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260607002401.212976-1-kuba@kernel.org>
Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> GRO test is very timing-sensitive, packets may be delayed
> by the network or just sent slowly. Because of this we retry
> each test case up to 6 times.
>
> This makes perfect sense for positive cases, in which we want
> to see coalescing. Negative test cases, which modify headers
> and expect no coalescing should have opposite treatment.
> We should really try 6 times and make sure that each time
> the test failed. This would, however, require that we annotate
> each test to indicate whether its positive or negative.
> Let's start with a simpler improvement. Do not allow
> retries if we detected over-coalescing. Previously the negative
> case would have to get lucky at least once in 6 tries to pass.
> Now the first failure breaks the retry loop.
>
> For background - NICs tend to ignore the contents of the TCP
> timestamp option, so that test case commonly fails. In NIPA
> having 6 attempts, however, was enough for some NICs to get
> multiple successful runs in a row, getting the test cases
> auto-classified as expected to pass, even tho the NIC does
> not comply with the expectations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-07 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-07 0:24 [PATCH net-next] selftests: drv-net: gro: signal over-coalescing more reliably Jakub Kicinski
2026-06-07 13:49 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
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=willemdebruijn.kernel.ee6597e4f7af@gmail.com \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox