On 7/30/26 5:46 PM, Alice Mikityanska wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2026, at 10:46, Paolo Abeni wrote: >> AFAICS the target packet number is independent from KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW >> and the actual offload setting. Possibly you can tune the target value a >> bit WRT the mentioned variables or skip entirely pkts number validation >> in the slowest permutation (note that the self-test will still have some >> value due to code coverage with sanitizers enabled). > > Hmm, the above makes sense for the failures like this: > > https://netdev-ctrl.bots.linux.dev/logview.html?f=/logs/vmksft/net-dbg/results/754376/28-big-tcp-tunnels-sh/stdout > > 971 is slightly below than 1000 (even though it's typically 1600-1700 on > the CI runners, in this configuration). Tuning the thresholds can help. > > But I also see failures like this: > > https://netdev-ctrl.bots.linux.dev/logview.html?f=/logs/vmksft/net-dbg/results/751124/21-big-tcp-tunnels-sh/stdout > > It's a complete zero, so lowering the threshold won't help here. I could > reproduce it on my machine, although it requires hours of retries. I'd > like to capture the tcpdump and see what actually happens in this case. Ah, sorry, I haven't seen such failure yet. I *think* that one deserves a better investigation. Are you able to reproduce locally that kind of failure? If the such event frequency is low, perhaps it makes sense to improve the stability incrementally?
/P
