Thank you David, If you have the possibility you can try on some emulated virtual machine, where cores are much slower, so the workers don't return packages immediately. It reproduces in 100% cases in such environment.
Best regards Lukasz W dniu 19.01.2021 o 09:44, David Marchand pisze: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:59 AM Lukasz Wojciechowski > <l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com> wrote: >> According to the discussion in this thread: >> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=24ecce33-7b77f77c-24ed457c-0cc47a30 >> d446-e317a6beb8cfa273&q=1&e=f8bb12df-3698-4bce-a7b7-d72e22b91431&u=https% >> 3A%2F%2Finbox.dpdk.org%2Fdev%2FCAOE1vsOehF4ZMOWffpEv%3DQF6YOc5wXtg23PV83B >> 9CLiTMn8wQA%40mail.gmail.com%2F%23r >> >> I was able to reproduce the distributor test failure in the exactly same >> way as described, but on x86_64 machine with 32 cores. >> So it does not seem to be the problem related to the ARM architecture. >> IMO issue occurs when there are many worker threads returning at the same >> time packets. >> >> I was not able to observe the issue on ARM devices, but I used only >> machines with 4 cores. So that is max 3 worker cores, >> so maximum of 32*3 = 96 packets processed at the same time >> which is less than 127 , so the issue cannot occur. >> >> Can anyone verify this patch on a machine similar to one used in CI lab, >> on which the issue occurred? > Thanks for looking at it, Lukasz. > Unfortunately, I can't reproduce it on my x86 system (26 workers in > the test) and I don't have a ARM machine. > -- Lukasz Wojciechowski Principal Software Engineer Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics Office +48 22 377 88 25 l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com
