[pfcwd] Add half of polling time as compensation for test_pfcwd_timer_accuracy#14589
Merged
StormLiangMS merged 3 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom Sep 14, 2024
Merged
Conversation
8 tasks
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 14, 2024
…_accuracy (sonic-net#14589) What is the motivation for this PR? test_pfcwd_timer_accuracy case is flaky on Arisa platform. Sometimes the detect time is larger than the config detect time. Both the config detect time and polling time are 400ms, and most of the real detect times range between 800 ~ 1000 ms. Based on lua script log, in the failure loop (the detect time is larger than the config detect time), it took 3 polling durations to trigger the pfc storm, and in most of these cases, there was a little traffic in the first loop pooling duration. Suppose the timestamp for the script to send PFC frames was at the end of the first polling duration. then cause there were no enough PFC received and trigger the pfc storm in the third polling loop. How did you do it? Add half of polling time as compensation for the detect config time. How did you verify/test it? Run the case
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202311: #14592 |
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 14, 2024
…_accuracy (sonic-net#14589) What is the motivation for this PR? test_pfcwd_timer_accuracy case is flaky on Arisa platform. Sometimes the detect time is larger than the config detect time. Both the config detect time and polling time are 400ms, and most of the real detect times range between 800 ~ 1000 ms. Based on lua script log, in the failure loop (the detect time is larger than the config detect time), it took 3 polling durations to trigger the pfc storm, and in most of these cases, there was a little traffic in the first loop pooling duration. Suppose the timestamp for the script to send PFC frames was at the end of the first polling duration. then cause there were no enough PFC received and trigger the pfc storm in the third polling loop. How did you do it? Add half of polling time as compensation for the detect config time. How did you verify/test it? Run the case
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202405: #14593 |
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 14, 2024
…_accuracy (#14589) What is the motivation for this PR? test_pfcwd_timer_accuracy case is flaky on Arisa platform. Sometimes the detect time is larger than the config detect time. Both the config detect time and polling time are 400ms, and most of the real detect times range between 800 ~ 1000 ms. Based on lua script log, in the failure loop (the detect time is larger than the config detect time), it took 3 polling durations to trigger the pfc storm, and in most of these cases, there was a little traffic in the first loop pooling duration. Suppose the timestamp for the script to send PFC frames was at the end of the first polling duration. then cause there were no enough PFC received and trigger the pfc storm in the third polling loop. How did you do it? Add half of polling time as compensation for the detect config time. How did you verify/test it? Run the case
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 14, 2024
…_accuracy (#14589) What is the motivation for this PR? test_pfcwd_timer_accuracy case is flaky on Arisa platform. Sometimes the detect time is larger than the config detect time. Both the config detect time and polling time are 400ms, and most of the real detect times range between 800 ~ 1000 ms. Based on lua script log, in the failure loop (the detect time is larger than the config detect time), it took 3 polling durations to trigger the pfc storm, and in most of these cases, there was a little traffic in the first loop pooling duration. Suppose the timestamp for the script to send PFC frames was at the end of the first polling duration. then cause there were no enough PFC received and trigger the pfc storm in the third polling loop. How did you do it? Add half of polling time as compensation for the detect config time. How did you verify/test it? Run the case
hdwhdw
pushed a commit
to hdwhdw/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2024
…_accuracy (sonic-net#14589) What is the motivation for this PR? test_pfcwd_timer_accuracy case is flaky on Arisa platform. Sometimes the detect time is larger than the config detect time. Both the config detect time and polling time are 400ms, and most of the real detect times range between 800 ~ 1000 ms. Based on lua script log, in the failure loop (the detect time is larger than the config detect time), it took 3 polling durations to trigger the pfc storm, and in most of these cases, there was a little traffic in the first loop pooling duration. Suppose the timestamp for the script to send PFC frames was at the end of the first polling duration. then cause there were no enough PFC received and trigger the pfc storm in the third polling loop. How did you do it? Add half of polling time as compensation for the detect config time. How did you verify/test it? Run the case
arista-hpandya
pushed a commit
to arista-hpandya/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2024
…_accuracy (sonic-net#14589) What is the motivation for this PR? test_pfcwd_timer_accuracy case is flaky on Arisa platform. Sometimes the detect time is larger than the config detect time. Both the config detect time and polling time are 400ms, and most of the real detect times range between 800 ~ 1000 ms. Based on lua script log, in the failure loop (the detect time is larger than the config detect time), it took 3 polling durations to trigger the pfc storm, and in most of these cases, there was a little traffic in the first loop pooling duration. Suppose the timestamp for the script to send PFC frames was at the end of the first polling duration. then cause there were no enough PFC received and trigger the pfc storm in the third polling loop. How did you do it? Add half of polling time as compensation for the detect config time. How did you verify/test it? Run the case
vikshaw-Nokia
pushed a commit
to vikshaw-Nokia/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 23, 2024
…_accuracy (sonic-net#14589) What is the motivation for this PR? test_pfcwd_timer_accuracy case is flaky on Arisa platform. Sometimes the detect time is larger than the config detect time. Both the config detect time and polling time are 400ms, and most of the real detect times range between 800 ~ 1000 ms. Based on lua script log, in the failure loop (the detect time is larger than the config detect time), it took 3 polling durations to trigger the pfc storm, and in most of these cases, there was a little traffic in the first loop pooling duration. Suppose the timestamp for the script to send PFC frames was at the end of the first polling duration. then cause there were no enough PFC received and trigger the pfc storm in the third polling loop. How did you do it? Add half of polling time as compensation for the detect config time. How did you verify/test it? Run the case
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of PR
Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
test_pfcwd_timer_accuracy case is flaky on Arisa platform. Sometimes the detect time is larger than the config detect time.
Both the config detect time and polling time are 400ms, and most of the real detect times range between 800 ~ 1000 ms.
Based on lua script log, in the failure loop (the detect time is larger than the config detect time), it took 3 polling durations to trigger the pfc storm, and in most of these cases, there was a little traffic in the first loop pooling duration. Suppose the timestamp for the script to send PFC frames was at the end of the first polling duration. then cause there were no enough PFC received and trigger the pfc storm in the third polling loop.
How did you do it?
Add half of polling time as compensation for the detect config time.
How did you verify/test it?
Run the case
Any platform specific information?
Broadcom
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation