Update J2CP QoS test parameters for PR23848#20806
Merged
arlakshm merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom Oct 2, 2025
Merged
Conversation
The qos parameters for J2C+ asics to reflect the new headroom values.
Collaborator
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Contributor
Author
|
@vmittal-msft This PR goes alongside your PR over at sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#23848 Who can we ask to review these PRs? My changes should only go in when yours merges as well. We will want both changes to buildimage and mgmt backported to MSFT 202503 too |
vmittal-msft
reviewed
Oct 2, 2025
| pkts_num_trig_pfc: 764336 | ||
| pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp: 765653 | ||
| pkts_num_trig_pfc: 762403 | ||
| pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp: 775751 |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
400000 30m 0 2560 1495040 -5 1454025
Based on above pg limits for 400g/30m, total space a pg should get is shared space + per pg headroom limit. so i believe the ingress drop should happen with more than 1.5 MB space occupied ( per pg limit - 1.5mb & shared space) but about no is 775kb which seems less to me. Can you please double check ?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for reviewing, Vineet
1495040 bytes is the headroom space for this profile
775751 - 762403 = 13348 packets to fill the headroom
13348 * 112 = 1494976 bytes, the margin and dynamic accounting in the test then accounts for the < 1 packet difference between 1494976 and 1495040
Let me know if that clarifies. Thanks again
vmittal-msft
requested changes
Oct 2, 2025
Contributor
vmittal-msft
left a comment
vmittal-msft
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please see comment.it should be applicable to rest of the places as well.
Contributor
|
@ansrajpu-git @saksarav-nokia to review as well. |
vmittal-msft
approved these changes
Oct 2, 2025
arlakshm
approved these changes
Oct 2, 2025
Contributor
|
@peterbailey-arista, there is a cherry-pick conflict for 202503 branch. Please create a PR in the ,msft/202503 directly |
9 tasks
vidyac86
pushed a commit
to vidyac86/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 23, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values.
saravanan-nexthop
pushed a commit
to saravanan-nexthop/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values.
11 tasks
opcoder0
pushed a commit
to opcoder0/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: opcoder0 <110003254+opcoder0@users.noreply.github.com>
selldinesh
pushed a commit
to selldinesh/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 11, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: selldinesh <dinesh.sellappan@keysight.com>
echuawu
pushed a commit
to echuawu/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values.
saravanan-nexthop
pushed a commit
to saravanan-nexthop/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 15, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: Saravanan <saravanan@nexthop.ai>
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
AharonMalkin
pushed a commit
to AharonMalkin/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: Aharon Malkin <amalkin@nvidia.com>
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
venu-nexthop
pushed a commit
to venu-nexthop/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 13, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values.
yifan-nexthop
pushed a commit
to nexthop-ai/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: YiFan Wang <yifan@nexthop.ai>
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 26, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
lakshmi-nexthop
pushed a commit
to lakshmi-nexthop/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Yarramaneni <lakshmi@nexthop.ai>
ytzur1
pushed a commit
to ytzur1/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 29, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values.
ytzur1
pushed a commit
to ytzur1/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values. Signed-off-by: Yael Tzur <ytzur@nvidia.com>
abhishek-nexthop
pushed a commit
to nexthop-ai/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values.
venu-nexthop
pushed a commit
to venu-nexthop/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? An increased packet size was needed for the hdrm_pool_size tests so fewer packets would be needed - the test was too slow prior to the change and prone to timing out. pkts_num_trig_pfc, pkts_num_trig_ingr_drp, pkts_num_hdrm_full were recalculated for the new headroom size How did you verify/test it? Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values.
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
6 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.
These qos parameters are needed for J2C+ asics to reflect the new headroom values introduced in
sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#23848
This change should only merge after PR23848 does
Both changes must be backported to MSFT-202503 as well.
Description of PR
Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
How did you do it?
How did you verify/test it?
Testing was done on msft-202503 with J2C+ hardware to verify the sonic-mgmt tests pass where the previously failed with the new headroom values.
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation