On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:52:36PM +0000, Darrell Ball wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Stringer <j...@ovn.org>
> Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 3:43 PM
> To: Darrell Ball <db...@vmware.com>
> Cc: James Page <james.p...@ubuntu.com>, "b...@openvswitch.org" 
> <b...@openvswitch.org>
> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [openvswitch 2.8.0 dpdk] testsuite: 1211 1212 1213 
> 1214 1215 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1224 1225 1226 2338 failed
> 
>     On 8 August 2017 at 09:26, Darrell Ball <db...@vmware.com> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > From: <ovs-discuss-boun...@openvswitch.org> on behalf of James Page
>     > <james.p...@ubuntu.com>
>     > Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 2:49 AM
>     > To: "b...@openvswitch.org" <b...@openvswitch.org>
>     > Subject: [ovs-discuss] [openvswitch 2.8.0 dpdk] testsuite: 1211 1212 
> 1213
>     > 1214 1215 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1224 1225 1226 2338 failed
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Hi
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I'm cutting builds from branch-2.8 in preparation for the ovs 2.8.0 
> release
>     > for Ubuntu; we build and test two sets of binaries - a vanilla one and 
> one
>     > with dpdk enabled.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I see test failures on all of the "ofproto-dpif - conntrack" tests with 
> the
>     > DPDK build and with the ovn ACL test (see attached logs).  Vanilla 
> build is
>     > fine.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > James
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > These are generic tests and should not be run with-dpdk set.
>     >
>     > If you run these tests --with-dpdk, some tests will consider the packets
>     > coming an actual dpdk interface, which they are not.
>     >
>     > In this case, the packets will be marked with a bad checksum.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Are you able to run these tests as we do without “–with-dpdk” ?
>     
>     Hmm, this seems surprising to me - I thought that "--with-dpdk" mostly
>     just enables another netdevice implementation. Why would this affect
>     input/output with netdev-dummy devices?
>     
>     For what it's worth, I tried a run of the testsuite with OVS built
>     "--with-dpdk" on branch-2.7 and it worked fine:
>     
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__travis-2Dci.org_joestringer_openvswitch_jobs_262439494&d=DwIFaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=BVhFA09CGX7JQ5Ih-uZnsw&m=2rYtIAwBngD_iZxhgs9_RxL9aNIlVqYJNRfdSppMEKw&s=j1JxZ5I8Yj0xapAPLtfpPqwTHiqQEUmUf2ZBdqdJkOo&e=
>  
>     
>     The test failures for the first few are hard-failures (ie ovs uses
>     WAIT_UNTIL for something that never succeeds), examples below where
>     OVS was waiting to receive packets that never arrive:
>     
>     ../../tests/ofproto-dpif.at:9016: ovs-appctl netdev-dummy/receive p2
>     
> 'in_port(2),eth(src=50:54:00:00:00:0a,dst=50:54:00:00:00:09),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(src=10.1.1.2,dst=10.1.1.1,proto=17,tos=0,ttl=64,frag=no),udp(src=2,dst=1)'
>     ../../tests/ofproto-dpif.at:9018: hard failure
>     
>     ---
>     
>     Some of the later failures are a bit more interesting:
>     
>     ../../tests/ofproto-dpif.at:9161: ovs-appctl netdev-dummy/receive p2
>     
> 'in_port(2),eth(src=50:54:00:00:00:0a,dst=50:54:00:00:00:09),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(src=10.1.1.2,dst=10.1.1.1,proto=17,tos=0,ttl=64,frag=no),udp(src=2,dst=1)'
>     ../../tests/ofproto-dpif.at:9164: cat ovs-vswitchd.log | strip_ufid |
>     filter_flow_install
>     --- - 2017-08-08 09:39:36.051525087 +0000
>     +++ 
> /build/openvswitch-NQWKUM/openvswitch-2.8.0~git20170807.17b6e3ce8/_dpdk/tests/testsuite.dir/at-groups/1214/stdout
>     2017-08-08 09:39:36.046218819 +0000
>     @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
>     
> -ct_state(+new-est+trk),recirc_id(0x1),in_port(2),packet_type(ns=0,id=0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no),
>     actions:drop
>     
> -ct_state(-new+est+trk),recirc_id(0x1),in_port(2),packet_type(ns=0,id=0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(proto=17,frag=no),
>     actions:1
>     
> +ct_state(-new-est+trk),recirc_id(0x1),in_port(2),packet_type(ns=0,id=0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no),
>     actions:drop
>      
> recirc_id(0),in_port(1),packet_type(ns=0,id=0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(proto=17,frag=no),
>     actions:ct(commit),2
>      
> recirc_id(0),in_port(2),packet_type(ns=0,id=0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(proto=17,frag=no),
>     actions:ct,recirc(0x1)
>     
>     ---
>     
>     ../../tests/ofproto-dpif.at:9738: ovs-appctl netdev-dummy/receive p1
>     
> '50540000000950540000000a080045000028258e40004006ff3d0a0101020a01010100020001396bb55e8cadbf8a5010000a5ec10000'
>     ../../tests/ofproto-dpif.at:9740: ovs-appctl revalidator/purge
>     ../../tests/ofproto-dpif.at:9744: cat ofctl_monitor.log
>     --- /dev/null 2017-04-26 10:10:32.404961898 +0000
>     +++ 
> /build/openvswitch-NQWKUM/openvswitch-2.8.0~git20170807.17b6e3ce8/_dpdk/tests/testsuite.dir/at-groups/1225/stdout
>     2017-08-08 09:40:40.454215126 +0000
>     @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>     +NXT_PACKET_IN (xid=0x0): table_id=1 cookie=0x1 total_len=54
>     ct_state=inv|trk,in_port=1 (via action) data_len=54 (unbuffered)
>     
> +tcp,vlan_tci=0x0000,dl_src=50:54:00:00:00:0a,dl_dst=50:54:00:00:00:09,nw_src=10.1.1.2,nw_dst=10.1.1.1,nw_tos=0,nw_ecn=0,nw_ttl=64,tp_src=2,tp_dst=1,tcp_flags=ack
>     tcp_csum:629b
>     +NXT_PACKET_IN (xid=0x0): table_id=1 cookie=0x1 total_len=55
>     ct_state=inv|trk,in_port=1 (via action) data_len=55 (unbuffered)
>     
> +tcp,vlan_tci=0x0000,dl_src=50:54:00:00:00:0a,dl_dst=50:54:00:00:00:09,nw_src=10.1.1.2,nw_dst=10.1.1.1,nw_tos=0,nw_ecn=0,nw_ttl=64,tp_src=2,tp_dst=1,tcp_flags=psh|ack
>     tcp_csum:5892
>     +NXT_PACKET_IN (xid=0x0): table_id=1 cookie=0x1 total_len=54
>     ct_state=inv|trk,in_port=2 (via action) data_len=54 (unbuffered)
>     
> 
> [Darrell]
> Thanks
> 2.7 will work fine.
> I have already traced the errors and know why they are occurred; the new HWOL 
> bad checksum flags are not initialized.
> I sent a patch this morning
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2017-August/337042.html

It wasn't clear that this fixed unit test breakage.  Would you mind
adding that to the commit message?
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
disc...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss

Reply via email to