Re: [PATCH net v2 0/4] Improve stability of big_tcp_tunnels.sh selftest
From: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-08-25 14:53:37
Also in:
linux-kselftest
Hi Paolo, On 25/08/2026 15:21, Paolo Abeni wrote:
On 8/22/26 2:03 PM, Alice Mikityanska wrote:quoted
From: Alice Mikityanska <redacted> This series addresses flakiness of big_tcp_tunnels.sh discussed at: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/349c582c-73e3-468c-91cd-ad6cc3562700@app.fastmail.com/ (local) Lower the thresholds to avoid failures like this (number of packets below the threshold): https://netdev-ctrl.bots.linux.dev/logview.html?f=/logs/vmksft/net-dbg/results/754376/28-big-tcp-tunnels-sh/stdout Tweak tcp_min_tso_segs and initcwnd to avoid failures like this (BIG TCP doesn't kick in in slow configurations): https://netdev-ctrl.bots.linux.dev/logview.html?f=/logs/vmksft/net-dbg/results/751124/21-big-tcp-tunnels-sh/stdout v2 changes: Use $KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW instead of probing kernel config. v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260814194124.3102581-1-alice.kernel@fastmail.im/ (local)Any special reason for moving the target tree to 'net'? Selftests stability improvements should go via the net-next tree (without the fixes tag).
Sorry, I suggested to switch the target tree now that the selftest being fixed here has landed there. TBH, I think it is unclear what to do in this case: I agree that these modifications are not critical fixes, but they do help other people validating changes, plus they don't introduce regressions in the kernel code. If they go to net-next, that means other CIs (and developers) will potentially see false positives for ~2 months. Personnaly, I think such fixes should go to net, but that's fine if the stable team don't backport them. Cheers, Matt -- Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.