From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9447543CA3; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:46:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C72542E51; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:46:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-oi1-f179.google.com (mail-oi1-f179.google.com [209.85.167.179]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9A14028C for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:46:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-oi1-f179.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3c19dd9ade5so663229b6e.3 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1710427568; x=1711032368; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2lk+jKoVTRAyeQMZ3et23h2l1OV/O8ZIVCFEHUOmwwY=; b=VHHYc9H/yk2BMlkDSdoliXZuqXO/Up/7kpB2AyaX+8kFjo28UYdq/bWUjcB4KAk2au U0TinOI244rz+GfKuHPvN0LLlLxuRAwG8Uvv7AhGHJgTBQW5/MncS1VIUQ+ZZf1TC+1Y vyXgOqaia6RY/zlxnHu0PfLBA5lenpU4BV+Iw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710427568; x=1711032368; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2lk+jKoVTRAyeQMZ3et23h2l1OV/O8ZIVCFEHUOmwwY=; b=iIRgPObz4GZ588sUcnWkrE3hxHtvaDWCWT8DBX34bL7DhMAEQbiBeyheFwqvr0aZ9a E3SHqS4rrE56tEDEcpxbLoQioLuInOBNY0PdyeZpZrUzoxmtz4SNb5X4gvtt5q7H5xLF Wui1wjLlpbcDz3loU+Idm/rP3LgWmDyrYPFwNl41cDctEFLuzhB2kZQW76fFtImD1HQO wo9CQW5CZm5yul1BEMTLxN7iEDFCxOYVnoqfDDetodLOpuLRTy2V1Af1G1aVfmS55VV+ kqbzDJInE5y6zCIX+64QannFz+feTk3uKSK42Pv8En1UOvTs7/e5yExtk2wnHl1VvusA 6Rtg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzmFoylgDMnzE6xgpiNeShe7qS9EnVJ8n9GVf+oJe33Nc7bYAwJ fNF6nW3vqSWOjZeXCL+jrnqjtbQ8n7xf28a53lM30JHIqcw4c6E1XKFywVIyR7IpHk6bEi7D/gL ZyTa663XzbgWv5iKaasZZRe1K8KXd8zYkTTewxA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE4hNM6peMj9J2xpR2SthSZboXuCbhSnvQ1KS4cZhAnO8Y560HCVwAgdC60DY+HMvk1OROJEf3uhozB6Vgis7Q= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:65a2:b0:220:c105:73fc with SMTP id fp34-20020a05687065a200b00220c10573fcmr947689oab.52.1710427568287; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:46:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Patrick Robb Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:45:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: BRCM 57414 Performance Test To: Ajit Khaparde Cc: ci@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Hi Ajit, One of the tests we run for the BRCM 57414 NIC in the dpdk community lab is a single core forwarding test in which we try to match line rate on the NIC, and protect against any performance regressions in DPDK. We track the MPPS forwarded between interfaces on the DUT, compare that metric against the most recent "baseline" run, and if the delta is more than 5% it is a fail. So the idea is if a significant regression is introduced on a patch, CI testing catches that. Right now on one of our ARM systems with brcm57414 this test is having high variance... more than the 5% threshold in some cases. I think this may in some way relate to the maintenance we did a few weeks back - we were seeing like .2% variance before. The expected throughput seems consistent, but the results have higher variance than normal. Obviously something is slightly wrong, and the system needs to be re-tuned a little or something. We can look at it (prefer to do any maintenance once all RCs are complete), but in the interim I want to just bump the accepted Delta from 5% to 7%, just to stop the false fails, but still maintain some coverage. Once we tune the system and reduce the results variance, we can return to 5%. Does this sound fine to you? Thanks, Patrick -- Patrick Robb Technical Service Manager UNH InterOperability Laboratory 21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824 www.iol.unh.edu