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 EE9DDA0032; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:35:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052DB410DC; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:28:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com (new1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.221]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204E340DF6 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:28:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC3D58044E; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:28:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= ucxPvFW//lqxdcGjV4GCR1pF5u5XX4B11CwQ5UpLURc=; b=BShVmzLjhXCipV4V t/H1TIayI1nIHjHs5EwgJZE07iRpG41uHsnevLXdsYpbIRTJByG2wARDDNlqTyjd CAS0VvGC+Z7OmzAnrvzzm4hSUR0+D0GiAY1PQbz+7KHWEFrcjCUh6vNK4PvUuDqM 8pZBJqBgJYHx/R7hcVKXrw/jV2t0zMaDl6lfwuEiwblsRNqR4RK3Cr/UcQHYUg70 uPTwqs60F6xoNYRgffuVLOW5bCEjuDU4sGCDzFHl+WKas5LuRZM7KnaH0QyNij/Q Dg3U1EaAmJI/D5GR7Q/X/CQL3edcamhTj1p+KxFYA6Afz7gk/XaI0bLJKiSzVGik 3bu44g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=ucxPvFW//lqxdcGjV4GCR1pF5u5XX4B11CwQ5UpLU Rc=; b=wA3JGyppszD05aP/s8ikcsqwlfAHSOUq/3BUOOf+l1wBfxiXqdY/ugKAo oFfiTKtYjc+b/8ZsqZYJB8n7qLcyWrAtkZEGxsPXxmMOaJ/oCzIdPnFtNzeW+OyW crVSIzzUG6Rhif5OAihdnMNmS8SLs3gcqaY/tHjF9+CZn42CkXhWtWlWMV1E3nmV XczJVr/etwm96t7C+buvWUTUkmGQ1dDWzFAS2MoGUw4Wp19Ng+N4YdD+GbW4BSTN +j6qrnsUXf5gVLwlKIrg9QMKj6cVFnQ3KQl7/uHCHQv3c9QoR5yVu4i37WWQmlaJ FkQ7S1V3E3rqFPvyW1riXmNhyEQyQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudektddgtddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttddunecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeegffeihfeftedthfdvgfetkeffffdukeevtdevtddvgfevuedu veegvdeggedtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:28:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Olivier Matz , Ali Alnubani , Slava Ovsiienko Cc: Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Alexander Kozyrev , Ferruh Yigit , zhaoyan.chen@intel.com, Andrew Rybchenko , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Ajit Khaparde , jerinj@marvell.com Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 10:28:45 +0200 Message-ID: <3491197.H0bSahjnX1@thomas> In-Reply-To: <2065212.rItNS1eAF1@thomas> References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61945@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <2065212.rItNS1eAF1@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" =46ollow-up again: We have added a note in 21.08, we should fix it in 21.11. If there are no counter proposal, I suggest applying this patch, no matter the performance regression. 30/07/2021 16:54, Thomas Monjalon: > 30/07/2021 16:35, Morten Br=F8rup: > > > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > > > Sent: Friday, 30 July 2021 14.37 > > >=20 > > > Hi Thomas, > > >=20 > > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 10:47:34AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > What's the follow-up for this patch? > > >=20 > > > Unfortunatly, I still don't have the time to work on this topic yet. > > >=20 > > > In my initial tests, in our lab, I didn't notice any performance > > > regression, but Ali has seen an impact (0.5M PPS, but I don't know how > > > much in percent). > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > > 19/01/2021 15:04, Slava Ovsiienko: > > > > > Hi, All > > > > > > > > > > Could we postpose this patch at least to rc2? We would like to > > > conduct more investigations? > > > > > > > > > > With best regards, Slava > > > > > > > > > > From: Olivier Matz > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 05:52:32PM +0000, Ali Alnubani wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > (Sorry had to resend this to some recipients due to mail serv= er > > > problems). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just confirming that I can still reproduce the regression with > > > single core and > > > > > > 64B frames on other servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Many thanks for the feedback. Can you please detail what is the > > > amount of > > > > > > performance loss in percent, and confirm the test case? (I > > > suppose it is > > > > > > testpmd io forward). > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunatly, I won't be able to spend a lot of time on this so= on > > > (sorry for > > > > > > that). So I see at least these 2 options: > > > > > > > > > > > > - postpone the patch again, until I can find more time to analy= ze > > > > > > and optimize > > > > > > - apply the patch if the performance loss is acceptable compared > > > to > > > > > > the added value of fixing a bug > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > >=20 > > > Statu quo... > > >=20 > > > Olivier > > >=20 > >=20 > > The decision should be simple: > >=20 > > Does the DPDK project support segmented packets? > > If yes, then apply the patch to fix the bug! > >=20 > > If anyone seriously cares about the regression it introduces, optimizat= ion patches are welcome later. We shouldn't wait for it. >=20 > You're right, but the regression is flagged to a 4-years old patch, > that's why I don't consider it as urgent. >=20 > > If the patch is not applied, the documentation must be updated to menti= on that we are releasing DPDK with a known bug: that segmented packets are = handled incorrectly in the scenario described in this patch. >=20 > Yes, would be good to document the known issue, > no matter how old it is. >=20 > > Generally, there could be some performance to gain by not supporting se= gmented packets at all, as a compile time option. But that is a different d= iscussion.