[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <688d352f2fc3b_2e527e294d5@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 17:44:15 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com,
andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
horms@...nel.org,
shuah@...nel.org,
willemb@...gle.com,
matttbe@...nel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selftests: net: packetdrill: xfail all problems on
slow machines
Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 17:00:35 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > We keep seeing flakes on packetdrill on debug kernels, while
> > > non-debug kernels are stable, not a single flake in 200 runs.
> > > Time to give up, debug kernels appear to suffer from 10msec
> > > latency spikes and any timing-sensitive test is bound to flake.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
>
> I should have added "Willem was right" 'cause you suggested this
> a while back. But didn't know how to phrase it in the commit msg :)
Ha, did I? I was hoping that the short allow-list would work. But if
latency spikes can happen anytime, then that clearly not.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists