Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add speed and buffer set test #432

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jan 31, 2018

Conversation

andriymoroz-mlnx
Copy link
Contributor

@andriymoroz-mlnx andriymoroz-mlnx commented Jan 19, 2018

Signed-off-by: Andriy Moroz c_andriym@mellanox.com

What I did
Added test for port speed change and PG buffer profile update

Why I did it

How I verified it
Ran the test and checked it passes

Details if related
should pass after
#417 and
sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#1250
are merged

Signed-off-by: Andriy Moroz <c_andriym@mellanox.com>

buffer_profiles = cfg_buffer_profile_table.getKeys()
expected_buffer_profiles_num = len(buffer_profiles)
assert expected_buffer_profiles_num == 7
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Using number 7 here seems to be a recipe for long investigation when test fails. How can we make it clearer where this number came from and when test failed here, what to look for?

A comment will be a good start.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it comes from the buffers profile used for the test
I think it can be calculates (something like cat ... | grep "PROFILE" | wc -l)
I'll check and update this comment

fvs = swsscommon.FieldValuePairs([("speed", speed)])
# set same speed on all ports
for i in range(0, self.num_ports):
cfg_port_table.set("Ethernet%d" % (i*4), fvs)
Copy link
Contributor

@yxieca yxieca Jan 24, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suspect this change won't work for all devices.

It all depends on what is self.num_ports?

For instance, Arista7260CX3 has 64 physical ports, if self.num_ports is 64 for this device, then it is fine. However, when Arista7260CX3 is used for T0, it will have 56 out of 64 ports break into 2 50G ports, bring the total number of ports to 112 + 8 = 120. Most of these ports are Etherenet(x * 4) and Ethernet(x * 4 + 2) except the 8 100G ports. So if self.num_ports is 120 for this device, then the code here is incorrect.

Also, it appears that ASIC_STATE:SAI_OBJECT_TYPE_PORT also contains disabled ports. E.g. on the platform mentioned above, the number of entry is actually 123 (120 valid ports, 2 disabled ports, 1 cpu).

On the same mentioned platform, the asic port sequence doesn't directly map into Ethernet sequence. This is another assumption that would break, unfortunately.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is designed to run on PLATFORM=vs

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see. Can you at least add a comment at beginning of this file?

Thanks,
Ying

@lguohan
Copy link
Contributor

lguohan commented Jan 24, 2018

the test does not pass, please check

@andriymoroz-mlnx
Copy link
Contributor Author

It will pass after VS docker is updated sonic-net/sonic-buildimage@ff8332f (it is part of buffers config PR sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#1250)
vicious circle...

@yxieca yxieca merged commit 4227bee into sonic-net:master Jan 31, 2018
@andriymoroz-mlnx andriymoroz-mlnx deleted the buffers_port_speed_test branch January 31, 2018 17:40
rodnymolina pushed a commit to rodnymolina/sonic-swss that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2018
* Add speed and buffer set test

Signed-off-by: Andriy Moroz <c_andriym@mellanox.com>

* Add some comments to the test

Signed-off-by: Andriy Moroz <c_andriym@mellanox.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants