[sonic-mgmt-docker-image] Support ptf dataplane packet poll with multiple ptf nn agents connection #21070
Merged
lguohan merged 7 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom Jan 19, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
/azpw ms_conflict |
Member
Author
|
/azp ms_conflict |
|
Command 'ms_conflict' is not supported by Azure Pipelines. Supported commands
See additional documentation. |
Collaborator
|
/azp run Azure.sonic-buildimage |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Collaborator
|
/azp run Azure.sonic-buildimage |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Collaborator
|
/azp run Azure.sonic-buildimage |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
859c514 to
13def8a
Compare
Collaborator
|
/azp run Azure.sonic-buildimage |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Collaborator
|
/azp run Azure.sonic-buildimage |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
8 tasks
r12f
approved these changes
Jan 18, 2025
Contributor
r12f
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks straight-forward enough, just taking device into account as well as the port. signed off.
VladimirKuk
pushed a commit
to Marvell-switching/sonic-buildimage
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 21, 2025
…iple ptf nn agents connection (sonic-net#21070) When testing sonic with ptf dataplane connecting multiple ptf nn agents, some cases will fail because of packets queue in ptf were not polled thoroughly. This is a bug or missing feature in ptf: p4lang/ptf#207 as a short term quick fix, this PR will patch the ptf-py3 package and unblock our qualification process
11 tasks
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to msft-202412: Azure/sonic-buildimage-msft#535 |
mssonicbld
added a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt.msft
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2025
… servers <!-- Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines; https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md Please provide following information to help code review process a bit easier: --> ### Description of PR <!-- - Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. - Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should reviewer start? background context? - List any dependencies that are required for this change. --> Summary: Fixes # (issue) To leverage the servers instead of a single server for deploying a single testbed, we proposal this design for deploying testbeds with multiple servers. Related PRs: | PR title | State | Context | | ------ | ------ | -------| | [[testbed-cli] Code change on add-topo and deploy-minigraph for deploying testbed with peers on multiple servers](sonic-net/sonic-mgmt#15643) |  |  | | [[Pending #15643][testbed] ptf data plane connection for multi-servers testbed](sonic-net/sonic-mgmt#15881) |  |  | | [[sonic-mgmt-docker-image] Support ptf dataplane packet poll with multiple ptf nn agents connection](sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#21070) |  |  | ### Type of change <!-- - Fill x for your type of change. - e.g. - [x] Bug fix --> - [ ] Bug fix - [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement) - [ ] Test case(new/improvement) ### Back port request - [ ] 202012 - [ ] 202205 - [ ] 202305 - [ ] 202311 - [ ] 202405 ### Approach #### What is the motivation for this PR? When deploying a testbed with a vast number of virtual ceos neighbors, we will create ceos containers on same server, however, the server doesn't have infinite resources such as memory to deploy that. To leverage the servers instead of a single server, we proposal this design for deploying testbeds with multiple servers. #### How did you do it? Design for deploying testbed with multiple servers. #### How did you verify/test it? #### Any platform specific information? #### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? ### Documentation <!-- (If it's a new feature, new test case) Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation? Link to the wiki page? -->
8 tasks
mssonicbld
added a commit
to Azure/sonic-mgmt.msft
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2025
… servers (#125) <!-- Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines; https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md Please provide following information to help code review process a bit easier: --> ### Description of PR <!-- - Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. - Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should reviewer start? background context? - List any dependencies that are required for this change. --> Summary: Fixes # (issue) To leverage the servers instead of a single server for deploying a single testbed, we proposal this design for deploying testbeds with multiple servers. Related PRs: | PR title | State | Context | | ------ | ------ | -------| | [[testbed-cli] Code change on add-topo and deploy-minigraph for deploying testbed with peers on multiple servers](sonic-net/sonic-mgmt#15643) |  |  | | [[Pending #15643][testbed] ptf data plane connection for multi-servers testbed](sonic-net/sonic-mgmt#15881) |  |  | | [[sonic-mgmt-docker-image] Support ptf dataplane packet poll with multiple ptf nn agents connection](sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#21070) |  |  | ### Type of change <!-- - Fill x for your type of change. - e.g. - [x] Bug fix --> - [ ] Bug fix - [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement) - [ ] Test case(new/improvement) ### Back port request - [ ] 202012 - [ ] 202205 - [ ] 202305 - [ ] 202311 - [ ] 202405 ### Approach #### What is the motivation for this PR? When deploying a testbed with a vast number of virtual ceos neighbors, we will create ceos containers on same server, however, the server doesn't have infinite resources such as memory to deploy that. To leverage the servers instead of a single server, we proposal this design for deploying testbeds with multiple servers. #### How did you do it? Design for deploying testbed with multiple servers. #### How did you verify/test it? #### Any platform specific information? #### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? ### Documentation <!-- (If it's a new feature, new test case) Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation? Link to the wiki page? -->
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why I did it
When testing sonic with ptf dataplane connecting multiple ptf nn agents, some cases will fail because of packets queue in ptf were not polled thoroughly. This is a bug or missing feature in ptf: p4lang/ptf#207
as a short term quick fix, this PR will patch the ptf-py3 package and unblock our qualification process.
Work item tracking
How I did it
Support poll all devices in ptf dataplane.
How to verify it
Run tests using ptf dataplane on testbed
Which release branch to backport (provide reason below if selected)
Tested branch (Please provide the tested image version)
Description for the changelog
Link to config_db schema for YANG module changes
A picture of a cute animal (not mandatory but encouraged)