On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 11:03:30PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On 8/6/23 11:40 PM, Geliang Tang wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 05:23:32PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > > > On 8/3/23 10:07 PM, Geliang Tang wrote: > > > > Use rand() to generate a random netns name instead of using the fixed > > > > name "mptcp_ns" for every test. > > > > > > > > By doing that, we can re-launch the test even if there was an issue > > > > removing the previous netns or if by accident, a netns with this generic > > > > name already existed on the system. > > > > > > > > Note that using a different name each will also help adding more > > > > subtests in future commits. > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > I tried to run mptcp tests simultaneously, and got "Cannot create > > namespace file "/var/run/netns/mptcp_ns": File exists" errors sometimes. > > So I add this patch to fix it. > > > > It's easy to reproduce, just run this commands in multiple terminals: > > > for i in `seq 1 100`; do sudo ./test_progs -t mptcp; done > > Not only the "-t mptcp" test. Other tests in test_progs also don't support > running parallel in multiple terminals. Does it really help to test the bpf > part of the prog_tests/mptcp.c test by running like this? If it wants to > exercise the other mptcp networking specific code like this, a separate > mptcp test is needed outside of test_progs and it won't be run in the bpf > CI. > > If you agree, can you please avoid introducing unnecessary randomness to the > test_progs where bpf CI and most users don't run in this way?
Thanks Martin. Sure, I agree. Let's drop this patch. > > Also, please don't resend the patches too fast until the discussion is > concluded. Please give reasonable time for others to reply. Sure. Please give me a clear reminder next time that it's time to resend a new version of the patches. > > I have a high level question. In LPC 2022 > (https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1354/), I recall there was idea > in using bpf to make other mptcp decision/policy. Any thought and progress > on this? This set which only uses bpf to change the protocol feels like an > incomplete solution. We are implementing MPTCP packet scheduler using BPF. Patches aren't sent to BPF mail list yet, only temporarily on our mptcp repo[1]. Here are the patches: selftests/bpf: Add bpf_burst test selftests/bpf: Add bpf_burst scheduler bpf: Export more bpf_burst related functions selftests/bpf: Add bpf_red test selftests/bpf: Add bpf_red scheduler selftests/bpf: Add bpf_rr test selftests/bpf: Add bpf_rr scheduler selftests/bpf: Add bpf_bkup test selftests/bpf: Add bpf_bkup scheduler selftests/bpf: Add bpf_first test selftests/bpf: Add bpf_first scheduler selftests/bpf: Add bpf scheduler test selftests/bpf: add two mptcp netns helpers selftests/bpf: use random netns name for mptcp selftests/bpf: Add mptcp sched structs bpf: Add bpf_mptcp_sched_kfunc_set bpf: Add bpf_mptcp_sched_ops If you could take a look at these patches in advance, I would greatly appreciate it. Any feedback is welcome. [1] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next.git -Geliang >
