| Message ID | 20180530055611.10216-4-bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On 05/29/2018 10:56 PM, Prashant Bhole wrote: > In order to reduce runtime of tests, recently timout for select() call > was reduced from 1sec to 10usec. This was causing many tests failures. > It was caught with failure handling commits in this series. > > Restoring the timeout from 10usec to 1sec > > Fixes: a18fda1a62c3 ("bpf: reduce runtime of test_sockmap tests") > Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp> > --- Quick question, how long does it take to run now with the time increase? If its taking too long we may need to remove some tests. I have a longer running test_sockmap script that I run as part of Cilium[1] project where I put longer running stress tests. Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> [1] cilium.io -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:56:09PM +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote: > In order to reduce runtime of tests, recently timout for select() call > was reduced from 1sec to 10usec. This was causing many tests failures. > It was caught with failure handling commits in this series. > > Restoring the timeout from 10usec to 1sec > > Fixes: a18fda1a62c3 ("bpf: reduce runtime of test_sockmap tests") > Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c > index 64f9e25c451f..9d01f5c2abe2 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c > @@ -345,8 +345,8 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt, > if (err < 0) > perror("recv start time: "); > while (s->bytes_recvd < total_bytes) { > - timeout.tv_sec = 0; > - timeout.tv_usec = 10; > + timeout.tv_sec = 1; > + timeout.tv_usec = 0; I've applied the set, but had to revert it, since it takes too long. real 1m40.124s user 0m0.375s sys 0m14.521s Myself and Daniel run the test semi-manually when we apply patches. Adding 2 extra minutes of wait time is unnecessary. Especially since most of it is idle time. Please find a way to fix tests differently. btw I don't see any failures today. Not sure what is being fixed by incresing a timeout. Also please mention [PATCH bpf-next] in the subject when you respin. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/30/2018 12:29 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:56:09PM +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote: >> In order to reduce runtime of tests, recently timout for select() call >> was reduced from 1sec to 10usec. This was causing many tests failures. >> It was caught with failure handling commits in this series. >> >> Restoring the timeout from 10usec to 1sec >> >> Fixes: a18fda1a62c3 ("bpf: reduce runtime of test_sockmap tests") >> Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >> index 64f9e25c451f..9d01f5c2abe2 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >> @@ -345,8 +345,8 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt, >> if (err < 0) >> perror("recv start time: "); >> while (s->bytes_recvd < total_bytes) { >> - timeout.tv_sec = 0; >> - timeout.tv_usec = 10; >> + timeout.tv_sec = 1; >> + timeout.tv_usec = 0; > > I've applied the set, but had to revert it, since it takes too long. > > real 1m40.124s > user 0m0.375s > sys 0m14.521s > Dang, I thought it would be a bit longer but not minutes. > Myself and Daniel run the test semi-manually when we apply patches.> Adding 2 extra minutes of wait time is unnecessary. Yep. > Especially since most of it is idle time. > Please find a way to fix tests differently. > btw I don't see any failures today. Not sure what is being fixed > by incresing a timeout. > Calling these fixes is a bit much, they are primarily improvements. The background is, when I originally wrote the tests my goal was to exercise the kernel code paths. Because of this I didn't really care if the tests actually sent/recv all bytes in the test. (I have long running tests using netperf/wrk/apached/etc. for that) But, the manual tests do have an option to verify the data if specified. The 'verify' option is a bit fragile in that with the right tests (e.g. drop) or the certain options (e.g. cork) it can fail which is expected. What Prashant added was support to actually verify the data correctly. And also fix a few cgroup handling and some pretty printing as well. He noticed the low timeout causing issue in these cases though so increased it. @Prashant, how about increasing this less dramatically because now all cork tests are going to stall for 1s unless perfectly aligned. How about 100us? Or even better we can conditionally set it based on if tx_cork is set. If tx_cork is set use 1us otherwise use 200us or something. (1s is really to high in any cases for lo) Also capturing some of the above in the cover letter would help folks understand the context a bit better. Thanks! John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 5/31/2018 4:59 AM, John Fastabend wrote: > On 05/30/2018 12:29 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:56:09PM +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote: >>> In order to reduce runtime of tests, recently timout for select() call >>> was reduced from 1sec to 10usec. This was causing many tests failures. >>> It was caught with failure handling commits in this series. >>> >>> Restoring the timeout from 10usec to 1sec >>> >>> Fixes: a18fda1a62c3 ("bpf: reduce runtime of test_sockmap tests") >>> Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp> >>> --- >>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >>> index 64f9e25c451f..9d01f5c2abe2 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >>> @@ -345,8 +345,8 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt, >>> if (err < 0) >>> perror("recv start time: "); >>> while (s->bytes_recvd < total_bytes) { >>> - timeout.tv_sec = 0; >>> - timeout.tv_usec = 10; >>> + timeout.tv_sec = 1; >>> + timeout.tv_usec = 0; >> >> I've applied the set, but had to revert it, since it takes too long. >> >> real 1m40.124s >> user 0m0.375s >> sys 0m14.521s >> > > Dang, I thought it would be a bit longer but not minutes. > >> Myself and Daniel run the test semi-manually when we apply patches.> Adding 2 extra minutes of wait time is unnecessary. > > Yep. > >> Especially since most of it is idle time. >> Please find a way to fix tests differently. >> btw I don't see any failures today. Not sure what is being fixed >> by incresing a timeout. >> > > Calling these fixes is a bit much, they are primarily improvements. > > The background is, when I originally wrote the tests my goal was to > exercise the kernel code paths. Because of this I didn't really care if > the tests actually sent/recv all bytes in the test. (I have long > running tests using netperf/wrk/apached/etc. for that) But, the manual > tests do have an option to verify the data if specified. The 'verify' > option is a bit fragile in that with the right tests (e.g. drop) > or the certain options (e.g. cork) it can fail which is expected. > > What Prashant added was support to actually verify the data correctly. > And also fix a few cgroup handling and some pretty printing as well. > He noticed the low timeout causing issue in these cases though so > increased it. > > @Prashant, how about increasing this less dramatically because now > all cork tests are going to stall for 1s unless perfectly aligned. > How about 100us? Or even better we can conditionally set it based > on if tx_cork is set. If tx_cork is set use 1us otherwise use 200us > or something. (1s is really to high in any cases for lo) > > Also capturing some of the above in the cover letter would help > folks understand the context a bit better. > I did trial and error for timeout values. Currently 1000us for corked tests and 1 sec for other tests works fine. I observed broken-pipe error at tx side when timeout was < 1000us. Also tests with apply=1 and higher number of iterations were taking time, so reducing iterations reduces the test run time drastically. real 0m12.968s user 0m0.219s sys 0m14.337s Also I will try to explain background in the cover letter of next series. -Prashant -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/30/2018 09:13 PM, Prashant Bhole wrote: > > > On 5/31/2018 4:59 AM, John Fastabend wrote: >> On 05/30/2018 12:29 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:56:09PM +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote: >>>> In order to reduce runtime of tests, recently timout for select() call >>>> was reduced from 1sec to 10usec. This was causing many tests failures. >>>> It was caught with failure handling commits in this series. >>>> >>>> Restoring the timeout from 10usec to 1sec >>>> >>>> Fixes: a18fda1a62c3 ("bpf: reduce runtime of test_sockmap tests") >>>> Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp> >>>> --- >>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 4 ++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >>>> index 64f9e25c451f..9d01f5c2abe2 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c >>>> @@ -345,8 +345,8 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int >>>> iov_length, int cnt, >>>> if (err < 0) >>>> perror("recv start time: "); >>>> while (s->bytes_recvd < total_bytes) { >>>> - timeout.tv_sec = 0; >>>> - timeout.tv_usec = 10; >>>> + timeout.tv_sec = 1; >>>> + timeout.tv_usec = 0; >>> >>> I've applied the set, but had to revert it, since it takes too long. >>> >>> real 1m40.124s >>> user 0m0.375s >>> sys 0m14.521s >>> >> >> Dang, I thought it would be a bit longer but not minutes. >> >>> Myself and Daniel run the test semi-manually when we apply patches.> >>> Adding 2 extra minutes of wait time is unnecessary. >> >> Yep. >> >>> Especially since most of it is idle time. >>> Please find a way to fix tests differently. >>> btw I don't see any failures today. Not sure what is being fixed >>> by incresing a timeout. >>> >> >> Calling these fixes is a bit much, they are primarily improvements. >> >> The background is, when I originally wrote the tests my goal was to >> exercise the kernel code paths. Because of this I didn't really care if >> the tests actually sent/recv all bytes in the test. (I have long >> running tests using netperf/wrk/apached/etc. for that) But, the manual >> tests do have an option to verify the data if specified. The 'verify' >> option is a bit fragile in that with the right tests (e.g. drop) >> or the certain options (e.g. cork) it can fail which is expected. >> >> What Prashant added was support to actually verify the data correctly. >> And also fix a few cgroup handling and some pretty printing as well. >> He noticed the low timeout causing issue in these cases though so >> increased it. >> >> @Prashant, how about increasing this less dramatically because now >> all cork tests are going to stall for 1s unless perfectly aligned. >> How about 100us? Or even better we can conditionally set it based >> on if tx_cork is set. If tx_cork is set use 1us otherwise use 200us >> or something. (1s is really to high in any cases for lo) >> >> Also capturing some of the above in the cover letter would help >> folks understand the context a bit better. >> > > I did trial and error for timeout values. Currently 1000us for corked > tests and 1 sec for other tests works fine. I observed broken-pipe error > at tx side when timeout was < 1000us. > > Also tests with apply=1 and higher number of iterations were taking > time, so reducing iterations reduces the test run time drastically. > Yep, sending 1B at a time is slow. > real 0m12.968s > user 0m0.219s > sys 0m14.337s > > Also I will try to explain background in the cover letter of next series. > Seems more reasonable to me now. Thanks. > -Prashant > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c index 64f9e25c451f..9d01f5c2abe2 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c @@ -345,8 +345,8 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt, if (err < 0) perror("recv start time: "); while (s->bytes_recvd < total_bytes) { - timeout.tv_sec = 0; - timeout.tv_usec = 10; + timeout.tv_sec = 1; + timeout.tv_usec = 0; /* FD sets */ FD_ZERO(&w);
In order to reduce runtime of tests, recently timout for select() call was reduced from 1sec to 10usec. This was causing many tests failures. It was caught with failure handling commits in this series. Restoring the timeout from 10usec to 1sec Fixes: a18fda1a62c3 ("bpf: reduce runtime of test_sockmap tests") Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)