| Message ID | 1560580950-16754-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series |
|
| Related | show |
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 08:42:15AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > This is a joint effort to make the unit tests ready for CI. > The first patches are fixes that I had accumulated. > Then the second part of the series focuses on skipping tests when some > requirements are not fulfilled so that we can start them in a restrained > environment like Travis virtual machines that gives us two cores and does > not have specific hw devices. > > We are still not ready for enabling those tests in Travis. > At least, the following issues remain: > - some fixes on librte_acl have not been merged yet [1], > - the tests on --file-prefix are still ko, and have been isolated in a > test that we could disable while waiting for the fixes, > - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a little more > than 10s, > - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], > - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste, > - the shared build unit tests all fail when depending on mempool since > the mempool drivers are not loaded, > For the autotest app shared builds, it is probably worthwhile linking in all drivers explicitly to avoid issues like this. /Bruce
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:02 PM Bruce Richardson < bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 08:42:15AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > This is a joint effort to make the unit tests ready for CI. > > The first patches are fixes that I had accumulated. > > Then the second part of the series focuses on skipping tests when some > > requirements are not fulfilled so that we can start them in a restrained > > environment like Travis virtual machines that gives us two cores and does > > not have specific hw devices. > > > > We are still not ready for enabling those tests in Travis. > > At least, the following issues remain: > > - some fixes on librte_acl have not been merged yet [1], > > - the tests on --file-prefix are still ko, and have been isolated in a > > test that we could disable while waiting for the fixes, > > - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a little more > > than 10s, > > - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], > > - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste, > > - the shared build unit tests all fail when depending on mempool since > > the mempool drivers are not loaded, > > > > For the autotest app shared builds, it is probably worthwhile linking in > all drivers explicitly to avoid issues like this. > Yes, I'll look into this. While at it, do you know why the i40e and ixgbe drivers are linked to app/test in meson?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:46:03PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:02 PM Bruce Richardson > <[1]bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 08:42:15AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > This is a joint effort to make the unit tests ready for CI. > > The first patches are fixes that I had accumulated. > > Then the second part of the series focuses on skipping tests when > some > > requirements are not fulfilled so that we can start them in a > restrained > > environment like Travis virtual machines that gives us two cores > and does > > not have specific hw devices. > > > > We are still not ready for enabling those tests in Travis. > > At least, the following issues remain: > > - some fixes on librte_acl have not been merged yet [1], > > - the tests on --file-prefix are still ko, and have been isolated > in a > > test that we could disable while waiting for the fixes, > > - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a > little more > > than 10s, > > - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], > > - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste, > > - the shared build unit tests all fail when depending on mempool > since > > the mempool drivers are not loaded, > > > For the autotest app shared builds, it is probably worthwhile > linking in > all drivers explicitly to avoid issues like this. > > Yes, I'll look into this. > While at it, do you know why the i40e and ixgbe drivers are linked to > app/test in meson? > -- There are unit tests for the device-specific functions in those drivers, so they need to be given at link time. /Bruce
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:18 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:46:03PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:02 PM Bruce Richardson > > <[1]bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 08:42:15AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > > This is a joint effort to make the unit tests ready for CI. > > > The first patches are fixes that I had accumulated. > > > Then the second part of the series focuses on skipping tests when > > some > > > requirements are not fulfilled so that we can start them in a > > restrained > > > environment like Travis virtual machines that gives us two cores > > and does > > > not have specific hw devices. > > > > > > We are still not ready for enabling those tests in Travis. > > > At least, the following issues remain: > > > - some fixes on librte_acl have not been merged yet [1], > > > - the tests on --file-prefix are still ko, and have been isolated > > in a > > > test that we could disable while waiting for the fixes, > > > - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a > > little more > > > than 10s, > > > - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], > > > - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste, > > > - the shared build unit tests all fail when depending on mempool > > since > > > the mempool drivers are not loaded, > > > > > For the autotest app shared builds, it is probably worthwhile > > linking in > > all drivers explicitly to avoid issues like this. > > > > Yes, I'll look into this. > > While at it, do you know why the i40e and ixgbe drivers are linked to > > app/test in meson? > > -- > > There are unit tests for the device-specific functions in those drivers, so > they need to be given at link time. > For testpmd, I can understand. But I can't see code for driver specific apis in app/test. It looks like a copy/paste error when adding meson support.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:41:21PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:18 PM Bruce Richardson > <[1]bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:46:03PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:02 PM Bruce Richardson > > <[1][2]bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 08:42:15AM +0200, David Marchand > wrote: > > > This is a joint effort to make the unit tests ready for CI. > > > The first patches are fixes that I had accumulated. > > > Then the second part of the series focuses on skipping > tests when > > some > > > requirements are not fulfilled so that we can start them in > a > > restrained > > > environment like Travis virtual machines that gives us two > cores > > and does > > > not have specific hw devices. > > > > > > We are still not ready for enabling those tests in Travis. > > > At least, the following issues remain: > > > - some fixes on librte_acl have not been merged yet [1], > > > - the tests on --file-prefix are still ko, and have been > isolated > > in a > > > test that we could disable while waiting for the fixes, > > > - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking > a > > little more > > > than 10s, > > > - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], > > > - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste, > > > - the shared build unit tests all fail when depending on > mempool > > since > > > the mempool drivers are not loaded, > > > > > For the autotest app shared builds, it is probably worthwhile > > linking in > > all drivers explicitly to avoid issues like this. > > > > Yes, I'll look into this. > > While at it, do you know why the i40e and ixgbe drivers are > linked to > > app/test in meson? > > -- > There are unit tests for the device-specific functions in those > drivers, so > they need to be given at link time. > > For testpmd, I can understand. > But I can't see code for driver specific apis in app/test. > It looks like a copy/paste error when adding meson support. > -- Ok, could be. Simple question is does it still build ok if you remove them? /Bruce
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:57 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:41:21PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:18 PM Bruce Richardson > > <[1]bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:46:03PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:02 PM Bruce Richardson > > > <[1][2]bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 08:42:15AM +0200, David Marchand > > wrote: > > > > This is a joint effort to make the unit tests ready for CI. > > > > The first patches are fixes that I had accumulated. > > > > Then the second part of the series focuses on skipping > > tests when > > > some > > > > requirements are not fulfilled so that we can start them in > > a > > > restrained > > > > environment like Travis virtual machines that gives us two > > cores > > > and does > > > > not have specific hw devices. > > > > > > > > We are still not ready for enabling those tests in Travis. > > > > At least, the following issues remain: > > > > - some fixes on librte_acl have not been merged yet [1], > > > > - the tests on --file-prefix are still ko, and have been > > isolated > > > in a > > > > test that we could disable while waiting for the fixes, > > > > - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking > > a > > > little more > > > > than 10s, > > > > - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], > > > > - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste, > > > > - the shared build unit tests all fail when depending on > > mempool > > > since > > > > the mempool drivers are not loaded, > > > > > > > For the autotest app shared builds, it is probably worthwhile > > > linking in > > > all drivers explicitly to avoid issues like this. > > > > > > Yes, I'll look into this. > > > While at it, do you know why the i40e and ixgbe drivers are > > linked to > > > app/test in meson? > > > -- > > There are unit tests for the device-specific functions in those > > drivers, so > > they need to be given at link time. > > > > For testpmd, I can understand. > > But I can't see code for driver specific apis in app/test. > > It looks like a copy/paste error when adding meson support. > > -- > Ok, could be. Simple question is does it still build ok if you remove them? > It would have been strange if it did not build, since on Makefile side we do nothing. Yes, it builds fine with meson without this. I managed to get the same test results than with static builds by linking the skeleton eventdev driver and the mempool sw drivers. Should be enough.
15/06/2019 08:42, David Marchand: > This is a joint effort to make the unit tests ready for CI. Applied, thanks Remaining work below from your list: [...] > - the tests on --file-prefix are still ko, and have been isolated in a > test that we could disable while waiting for the fixes, > - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a little more > than 10s, > - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], > - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste, > - the shared build unit tests all fail when depending on mempool since > the mempool drivers are not loaded, > > 2: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> writes: > 15/06/2019 08:42, David Marchand: >> This is a joint effort to make the unit tests ready for CI. > > Applied, thanks > > Remaining work below from your list: > [...] >> - the tests on --file-prefix are still ko, and have been isolated in a >> test that we could disable while waiting for the fixes, Yes, I think it's good to do that for now. >> - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a little more >> than 10s, Occasionally the distributor test times out as well. I've moved them as part of a separate patch, that I'll post along with a bigger series to enable the unit tests under travis. Michael and I are leaning toward introducing a new variable called RUN_TESTS which will do the docs and unit testing since those combined would add quite a bit to the execution time of each job (and feel free to bike shed the name, since the patches aren't final). >> - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], I guess we're waiting on a patch from Jananee (CC'd)? >> - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste, Agreed, so I think we'll disable the perf tests in the CI environment anyway. >> - the shared build unit tests all fail when depending on mempool since >> the mempool drivers are not loaded, I think Michael is working on a fix for this right now. >> 2: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285
01/07/2019 18:04, Aaron Conole: > Michael and I are leaning toward > introducing a new variable called RUN_TESTS which will do the docs and > unit testing since those combined would add quite a bit to the execution > time of each job (and feel free to bike shed the name, since the patches > aren't final). Please would you like to send a RFC so we can discuss it before you do the final patches?
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 PM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote: > >> - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a little > more > >> than 10s, > > Occasionally the distributor test times out as well. I've moved them as > part of a separate patch, that I'll post along with a bigger series to > enable the unit tests under travis. Michael and I are leaning toward > introducing a new variable called RUN_TESTS which will do the docs and > unit testing since those combined would add quite a bit to the execution > time of each job (and feel free to bike shed the name, since the patches > aren't final). > Seeing how the distributor autotest usually takes less than a second to complete, this sounds like a bug. I don't think I caught this so far. Yes, we need a variable to control this and select the targets that will do the tests and/or build the doc. About the name, RUN_TESTS is ok for me. What do you want to make of this variable? Have it as a simple boolean that enables everything? Or a selector with strings like unit-tests+doc+perf-tests? > >> - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], > > I guess we're waiting on a patch from Jananee (CC'd)? > Yep.
> > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 PM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a little more >> >> than 10s, >> >> Occasionally the distributor test times out as well. I've moved them as >> part of a separate patch, that I'll post along with a bigger series to >> enable the unit tests under travis. Michael and I are leaning toward >> introducing a new variable called RUN_TESTS which will do the docs and >> unit testing since those combined would add quite a bit to the execution >> time of each job (and feel free to bike shed the name, since the patches >> aren't final). > > > Seeing how the distributor autotest usually takes less than a second to complete, this sounds like a bug. > I don't think I caught this so far. So I actually ran into the distributor test timing out. I agree with David in that it is a bug with the test. Looking at the logs that test normally finishes in less than 1/2 a second, so running to 10 seconds and timing out is a big jump in run time. I ran into the issue where it timedout, so I restarted the job and it finished no problem. The test fails every so often for no good reason and the logs[1] dont really say much. I speculate that it is waiting for a resource to become available or in the worse case a deadlock. Seeing that it only fails every so often and it passes when restarted I don't think it's a big deal, nevertheless it's worth investing time figuring out what's wrong [1] https://api.travis-ci.com/v3/job/212335916/log.txt > > > Yes, we need a variable to control this and select the targets that will do the tests and/or build the doc. > About the name, RUN_TESTS is ok for me. > > What do you want to make of this variable? > Have it as a simple boolean that enables everything? Or a selector with strings like unit-tests+doc+perf-tests? > > >> >> >> - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], >> >> I guess we're waiting on a patch from Jananee (CC'd)? > > > Yep. > > > -- > David Marchand
On 7/1/19 2:07 PM, Michael Santana Francisco wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 PM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a little more >>>>> than 10s, >>> Occasionally the distributor test times out as well. I've moved them as >>> part of a separate patch, that I'll post along with a bigger series to >>> enable the unit tests under travis. Michael and I are leaning toward >>> introducing a new variable called RUN_TESTS which will do the docs and >>> unit testing since those combined would add quite a bit to the execution >>> time of each job (and feel free to bike shed the name, since the patches >>> aren't final). >> >> Seeing how the distributor autotest usually takes less than a second to complete, this sounds like a bug. >> I don't think I caught this so far. > So I actually ran into the distributor test timing out. I agree with > David in that it is a bug with the test. Looking at the logs that test > normally finishes in less than 1/2 a second, so running to 10 seconds > and timing out is a big jump in run time. I ran into the issue where > it timedout, so I restarted the job and it finished no problem. > The test fails every so often for no good reason and the logs[1] dont > really say much. I speculate that it is waiting for a resource to > become available or in the worse case a deadlock. Seeing that it only > fails every so often and it passes when restarted I don't think it's a > big deal, nevertheless it's worth investing time figuring out what's > wrong > > [1] https://api.travis-ci.com/v3/job/212335916/log.txt I investigated a little bit on this this test. CC'd David Hunt, I was able to reproduce the problem on v19.08-rc1 with: `while sudo sh -c "echo 'distributor_autotest' | ./build/app/test/dpdk-test"; do :; done` It runs a couple of times fine showing output and showing progress, but then at some point after a couple of seconds it just stops - no longer getting any output. It just sits there with no further output. I let it sit there for a whole minute and nothing happens. So I attach gdb to try to figure out what is happening. One thread seems to be stuck on a while loop, see lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c:310. I looked at the assembly code (layout asm, ni) and I saw these four lines below (which correspond to the while loop) being executed repeatedly and indefinitely. It looks like this thread is waiting for the variable bufptr64[0] to change state. 0xa064d0 <release+32> pause 0xa064d2 <release+34> mov 0x3840(%rdx),%rax 0xa064d9 <release+41> test $0x1,%al 0xa064db <release+43> je 0xa064d0 <release+32> While the first thread is waiting on bufptr64[0] to change state, there is another thread that is also stuck on another while loop on lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c:53. It seems that this thread is stuck waiting for retptr64 to change state. Corresponding assembly being executed indefinitely: 0xa06de0 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+592> mov 0x38c0(%r8),%rax 0xa06de7 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+599> test $0x1,%al 0xa06de9 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+601> je 0xa06bbd <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+45> 0xa06def <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+607> nop 0xa06df0 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+608> pause 0xa06df2 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+610> rdtsc 0xa06df4 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+612> mov %rdx,%r10 0xa06df7 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+615> shl $0x20,%r10 0xa06dfb <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+619> mov %eax,%eax 0xa06dfd <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+621> or %r10,%rax 0xa06e00 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+624> lea 0x64(%rax),%r10 0xa06e04 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+628> jmp 0xa06e12 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+642> 0xa06e06 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+630> nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 0xa06e10 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+640> pause 0xa06e12 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+642> rdtsc 0xa06e14 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+644> shl $0x20,%rdx 0xa06e18 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+648> mov %eax,%eax 0xa06e1a <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+650> or %rdx,%rax 0xa06e1d <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+653> cmp %rax,%r10 0xa06e20 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+656> ja 0xa06e10 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+640> 0xa06e22 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+658> jmp 0xa06de0 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+592> My guess is that these threads are interdependent, so one thread is waiting for the other thread to change the state of the control variable. I can't say for sure if this is what is happening or why the these variables don't change state, so I would like ask someone who is more familiar with this particular code to take a look >> >> Yes, we need a variable to control this and select the targets that will do the tests and/or build the doc. >> About the name, RUN_TESTS is ok for me. >> >> What do you want to make of this variable? >> Have it as a simple boolean that enables everything? Or a selector with strings like unit-tests+doc+perf-tests? >> >> >>>>> - librte_table unit test crashes on ipv6 [2], >>> I guess we're waiting on a patch from Jananee (CC'd)? >> >> Yep. >> >> >> -- >> David Marchand
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:50 PM Michael Santana Francisco < msantana@redhat.com> wrote: > On 7/1/19 2:07 PM, Michael Santana Francisco wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 PM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>> - rwlock_autotest and hash_readwrite_lf_autotest are taking a little > more > >>>>> than 10s, > >>> Occasionally the distributor test times out as well. I've moved them > as > >>> part of a separate patch, that I'll post along with a bigger series to > >>> enable the unit tests under travis. Michael and I are leaning toward > >>> introducing a new variable called RUN_TESTS which will do the docs and > >>> unit testing since those combined would add quite a bit to the > execution > >>> time of each job (and feel free to bike shed the name, since the > patches > >>> aren't final). > >> > >> Seeing how the distributor autotest usually takes less than a second to > complete, this sounds like a bug. > >> I don't think I caught this so far. > > So I actually ran into the distributor test timing out. I agree with > > David in that it is a bug with the test. Looking at the logs that test > > normally finishes in less than 1/2 a second, so running to 10 seconds > > and timing out is a big jump in run time. I ran into the issue where > > it timedout, so I restarted the job and it finished no problem. > > The test fails every so often for no good reason and the logs[1] dont > > really say much. I speculate that it is waiting for a resource to > > become available or in the worse case a deadlock. Seeing that it only > > fails every so often and it passes when restarted I don't think it's a > > big deal, nevertheless it's worth investing time figuring out what's > > wrong > > > > [1] https://api.travis-ci.com/v3/job/212335916/log.txt > > I investigated a little bit on this this test. CC'd David Hunt, > > I was able to reproduce the problem on v19.08-rc1 with: > > `while sudo sh -c "echo 'distributor_autotest' | > ./build/app/test/dpdk-test"; do :; done` > > It runs a couple of times fine showing output and showing progress, but > then at some point after a couple of seconds it just stops - no longer > getting any output. It just sits there with no further output. I let it > sit there for a whole minute and nothing happens. So I attach gdb to try > to figure out what is happening. One thread seems to be stuck on a while > loop, see lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c:310. > > I looked at the assembly code (layout asm, ni) and I saw these four > lines below (which correspond to the while loop) being executed > repeatedly and indefinitely. It looks like this thread is waiting for > the variable bufptr64[0] to change state. > > 0xa064d0 <release+32> pause > 0xa064d2 <release+34> mov 0x3840(%rdx),%rax > 0xa064d9 <release+41> test $0x1,%al > 0xa064db <release+43> je 0xa064d0 <release+32> > > > While the first thread is waiting on bufptr64[0] to change state, there > is another thread that is also stuck on another while loop on > lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c:53. It seems that this thread > is stuck waiting for retptr64 to change state. Corresponding assembly > being executed indefinitely: > > 0xa06de0 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+592> mov 0x38c0(%r8),%rax > 0xa06de7 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+599> test $0x1,%al > 0xa06de9 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+601> je 0xa06bbd > <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+45> > 0xa06def <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+607> nop > 0xa06df0 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+608> pause > 0xa06df2 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+610> rdtsc > 0xa06df4 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+612> mov %rdx,%r10 > 0xa06df7 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+615> shl $0x20,%r10 > 0xa06dfb <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+619> mov %eax,%eax > 0xa06dfd <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+621> or %r10,%rax > 0xa06e00 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+624> lea 0x64(%rax),%r10 > 0xa06e04 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+628> jmp 0xa06e12 > <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+642> > 0xa06e06 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+630> nopw > %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) > 0xa06e10 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+640> pause > 0xa06e12 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+642> rdtsc > 0xa06e14 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+644> shl $0x20,%rdx > 0xa06e18 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+648> mov %eax,%eax > 0xa06e1a <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+650> or %rdx,%rax > 0xa06e1d <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+653> cmp %rax,%r10 > 0xa06e20 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+656> ja 0xa06e10 > <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+640> > 0xa06e22 <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+658> jmp 0xa06de0 > <rte_distributor_request_pkt_v1705+592> > > > My guess is that these threads are interdependent, so one thread is > waiting for the other thread to change the state of the control > variable. I can't say for sure if this is what is happening or why the > these variables don't change state, so I would like ask someone who is > more familiar with this particular code to take a look > Ah cool, thanks for the analysis. Can you create a bz with this description and assign it to the librte_distributor maintainer?