From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE626A056B for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 10:22:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0321BFF4; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 10:22:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9575D1BFF0 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 10:22:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1583227332; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SjgJXiKnYzOk46i99PcrdeJT4I0pWl63xMiIQAsMWas=; b=DCHbBl3aecfLGx7/IsYoP0fCxjZFQ9qVzJ/1O5m/u0LDMjp3leQzxuVfCo6QnNPEZK2VHB bALR9GCB560iBOasjUZP9rEytE1QyGonF1j4fdpFAlfDEnDQhbdkhOMR7vTUrmLWo69umg O4hqwZUWvC+i0kyYPthmqE55c3UBAH8= Received: from mail-vs1-f69.google.com (mail-vs1-f69.google.com [209.85.217.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-40-fW6Ej8W7NJmcLCrIX6Najw-1; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 04:21:54 -0500 X-MC-Unique: fW6Ej8W7NJmcLCrIX6Najw-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f69.google.com with SMTP id r3so160823vsl.14 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 01:21:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SjgJXiKnYzOk46i99PcrdeJT4I0pWl63xMiIQAsMWas=; b=VnQnbpGMT4W58flPOgibWfbLNWuLlNDygI2ODVXDhKPPwri06CkXX8VHXseedfNyEF WWVNmP99JPqWVciA/ljZoSTsjrGZlvRrONLmFz5oeEoweuh7FpjHchWlissJGmn1X3kJ RggYquTAycM782FP7YQwX/IPZmNDmZKaGFGBs+yG+GurXc/XnFuwq9av9F3hJgxK8BHm Yel6BkQQy5th8il/tvWFJ2GTSIg/i6zDdw1ifaQkjNtCc1MzfE0zSsPtcjgwdsozqT9S Rk3THvOeQYnm6ZD1U1v4zyZCLSXfy549LHSE4mnGEM/0JJ4LJxbojKuFfKthDLH7PtF7 PEbg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1B8C0T38GgjiJvMWDV0CxpvgVepYTesqKiGVCfK9wFdOcsZ7n6 mB7wIKmPQOmrXBRXe1CsoHavunEU+9IyH8plQr+WLh6kgVxPQ5+bxTnQWaAMBz7Iz4p7AWKTmHF auBcfD7POjRS2diYlIA== X-Received: by 2002:a67:30d7:: with SMTP id w206mr892883vsw.141.1583227314051; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 01:21:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vu1Tk0OUBo31mZW4PugoGqtZnsjP6DkIzT6/hCs7VdKt2hlqpYxiEbPY1biN3h8c6OaiUO4HRVsKBGUISvKPH4= X-Received: by 2002:a67:30d7:: with SMTP id w206mr892873vsw.141.1583227313806; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 01:21:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1827408.xz2uEaWSZ7@xps> <9DEEADBC57E43F4DA73B571777FECECA41EAB066@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <9DEEADBC57E43F4DA73B571777FECECA41EBB4AF@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <9DEEADBC57E43F4DA73B571777FECECA41EBB4AF@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 10:21:42 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Chen, Zhaoyan" , dpdklab@iol.unh.edu Cc: Lincoln Lavoie , Thomas Monjalon , "ci@dpdk.org" , "Tu, Lijuan" , "Xu, Qian Q" X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a37447059fefd586" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Intel performance test is failing X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" --000000000000a37447059fefd586 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:58 AM Chen, Zhaoyan wrote= : > Thanks Jeremy. > > > > I quickly checked per-patches results and logs for the failures. That > seems not always failed case.. like fluctuation. > > > > For this case, could you help to check > > - if BIOS=E2=80=99s turbo boost is off, C0/C1 is off, C6 is off > > - if cores=E2=80=99 are isolated in kernel=E2=80=99s parameter > > - if other tasks are scheduled on the testbed when running performance te= st > > > > If all settings are good, we may consider it=E2=80=99s a regression or un= stable > performance issue. We will double check the performance by IXIA with late= st > DPDK master when we back to office (1 week later). > (replaced jeremy @mail with the dpdklab alias). Is this issue linked to the failures I see? https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/9799/ https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/9800/ https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/9804/ https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/9809/ https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/9814/ https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/9820/ Thanks. --=20 David Marchand --000000000000a37447059fefd586 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:58 AM Chen, Zhaoyan <zhaoyan.chen@intel.com> wrote:

Thanks Jeremy.

=C2=A0

I quickly checked per-patches results and= logs for the failures. That seems not always failed case.. like fluctuatio= n.

=C2=A0

For this case, could you help to check=

- if BIOS=E2=80=99s turbo boost is off, C= 0/C1 is off, C6 is off

- if cores=E2=80=99 are isolated in kerne= l=E2=80=99s parameter

- if other tasks are scheduled on the tes= tbed when running performance test

=C2=A0

If all settings are good, we may consider= it=E2=80=99s a regression or unstable performance issue. We will double ch= eck the performance by IXIA with latest DPDK master when we back to office (1 week later). =C2=A0


(replaced jeremy @mail with th= e dpdklab alias).

Is this issue linked to the = failures I see?


Thanks.

--
<= div>David Marchand
--000000000000a37447059fefd586--