On 3/14/22 17:21, Phelan, Michael wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Amber, Kumar <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday 14 March 2022 13:59 >> To: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>; Phelan, Michael >> <[email protected]>; ovs-dev <[email protected]> >> Cc: Stokes, Ian <[email protected]>; Ferriter, Cian >> <[email protected]>; Aaron Conole <[email protected]>; >> Kalahasthi, Suneetha <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: [ovs-build] |fail| pw1600225 [ovs-dev, branch-2.15] dpdk: Use >> DPDK 20.11.4 release >> >> Hi Ilya, Michael, >> >> Please find my reply inline. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 5:44 PM >>> To: Phelan, Michael <[email protected]>; ovs-dev <ovs- >>> [email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected]; Stokes, Ian <[email protected]>; Ferriter, >>> Cian <[email protected]>; Aaron Conole <[email protected]>; >>> Kalahasthi, Suneetha <[email protected]>; Amber, Kumar >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [ovs-build] |fail| pw1600225 [ovs-dev, branch-2.15] dpdk: >>> Use DPDK 20.11.4 release >>> >>> On 3/14/22 12:29, Phelan, Michael wrote: >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Friday 11 March 2022 20:38 >>>>> To: ovs-dev <[email protected]>; Phelan, Michael >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: [email protected]; Stokes, Ian <[email protected]>; >>>>> Ferriter, Cian <[email protected]>; Aaron Conole >>>>> <[email protected]>; Kalahasthi, Suneetha >>>>> <[email protected]>; Amber, Kumar >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: [ovs-build] |fail| pw1600225 [ovs-dev, branch-2.15] >>>>> dpdk: Use DPDK 20.11.4 release >>>>> >>>>>> Test-Label: intel-ovs-compilation >>>>>> Test-Status: fail >>>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/api/patches/1600225/ >>>>>> >>>>>> AVX-512_compilation: failed >>>>>> DPLCS Test: fail >>>>>> DPIF Test: fail >>>>>> MFEX Test: fail >>>>>> Errors in DPCLS test: >>>>>>> Good hash: 121684652 len: 72 Test hash:0 len:0 >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00034|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation for avx512_ipv4_udp failed in pkt >>>>> 15, disabling. >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00035|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation failure details: >>>>>>> MFEX autovalidator pkt 15 >>>>>>> Good hash: 121684652 len: 72 Test hash:0 len:0 >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00036|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation for avx512_ipv4_udp failed in pkt >>>>> 19, disabling. >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00037|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation failure details: >>>>>>> MFEX autovalidator pkt 19 >>>>>>> Good hash: 121684652 len: 72 Test hash:0 len:0 >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00038|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation for avx512_ipv4_udp failed in pkt >>>>> 21, disabling. >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00039|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation failure details: >>>>>>> MFEX autovalidator pkt 21 >>>>>>> Good hash: 121684652 len: 72 Test hash:0 len:0 >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00040|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation for avx512_ipv4_udp failed in pkt >>>>> 25, disabling. >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00041|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation failure details: >>>>>>> MFEX autovalidator pkt 25 >>>>>>> Good hash: 121684652 len: 72 Test hash:0 len:0 >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00042|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation for avx512_ipv4_udp failed in pkt >>>>> 27, disabling. >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00043|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation failure details: >>>>>>> MFEX autovalidator pkt 27 >>>>>>> Good hash: 121684652 len: 72 Test hash:0 len:0 >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00044|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation for avx512_ipv4_udp failed in pkt >>>>> 31, disabling. >>>>>>> 2022-03-02T16:05:44.579Z|00045|dpif_netdev_extract(pmd- >>>>> c21/id:101)|ERR|Autovalidation failure details: >>>>>>> MFEX autovalidator pkt 31 >>>>> >>>>> Hey, Michael, others. >>>>> >>>>> Above errors are not part of the current OVS code, nor the patch >>>>> this report is for. But I see that code in the other patch that >>>>> has no test report from the >>>>> intel-ovs-compilation: >>>>> >>>>> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/202202251156 >>>>> 54 >>>>> .5 >>>>> [email protected]/ >>>>> >>>>> Seems like report was sent to a wrong patch. The patch number at >>>>> the top of the mail is correct though, so I'm not sure what is going on. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. >>>> >>>> Hi Ilya, >>>> The patch was tagged with branch-2.15 so the CI tested the patch >>>> with OVS >>> 2.15 and DPDK 20.11 so perhaps that is why the unusual errors occurred? >>> >>> There is no code that could print such messages on any upstream >>> branch. So, I see only two options: >>> >>> - Report sent to a wrong patch >>> or >>> - The patch for testing was applied to non-upstream version of OVS. >>> >>> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see other option on how >>> the 'Good hash: 121684652 len: 72 Test hash:0 len:0' can be >>> printed with upstream OVS + DPDK 20.11.4 patch. >>> > > After looking through the build logs I can say for certain that the report > was not sent for the wrong patch. Also, the Jenkins job resets the repository > before applying patches so I don't see how it could've been applied to a > non-upstream version unless I had the wrong branch. Am I correct in saying > that the branch "branch-2.15" is the correct branch for OVS 2.15?
Yes, "branch-2.15" is a correct branch. And you can see for yourself that the following grep emits no results: git grep 'Good hash:' origin/branch-2.15 > > I did notice that the command used to call the unit tests was incorrect for > the older OVS versions but I couldn't recreate the error that was reported in > the mail. The mail reported that the 6th DPDK unit test had failed however > with the current up to date branch-2.15 there seems to be only 5 tests which > are available. The command used was "make check-dpdk 'TESTSUITEFLAGS=1-6 8'" > however when I try that command now it returns an "invalid test group: 6" > error as there is no sixth test whereas before it generated the log file > containing the hash errors in tests/system-dpdk-testsuite.dir/6. I guess, that's another evidence that the test was performed with some incorrect base code. I'm not sure if we can get to the bottom of this right now, but let's just keep an eye on testing to track the issue down in case it happens again. Thanks for checking. > >>>> >>>> Amber's patch was tested and results reported to the build mailing >>>> list, >>> however the result was not picked up by patchwork as it was sent >>> before I had corrected how failures were reported. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Michael. >> >> This confusion is basically caused because of a patch I sent with IPv6 + >> Hashing optimizations that’s verifies the validity of hashing as well. >> The patch next in series adds the hashing functionality so this problem is >> there. >> >> Patch which will add the logs: >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/20220225115654.52 >> [email protected]/ > > Thanks for clarifying Amber, I'm not sure how this could have affected the > testing of Suneetha's patch though as the repository would've been reset > after testing your patch and there was other patches tested between testing > your patch and testing Suneetha's which didn’t encounter any issues. > > >> >> Hope this clarifies everything. >> Regards >> Amber _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
