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 F2CCAA052A; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:42:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A34141156; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:42:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AD3141111; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:42:28 +0100 (CET) IronPort-SDR: 1BNtO+81r3Y54UE4HT2+dhrBhkDSfKVgL/mvM5FC1oZkzyGyA4jbePuS5NnMcKkEKbI33qKbkV n60SsEVm/H3Q== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9875"; a="179861514" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,374,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="179861514" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jan 2021 10:42:27 -0800 IronPort-SDR: RwkwSrdSTOnUIkbnZGQQPgakY/qDB+0m2e9MfHLBDYlxRU/tY/M708p9/OWO6FoGceCM+wrRiG GEvHspkQFcfQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,374,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="361632688" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.243.89]) ([10.213.243.89]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jan 2021 10:42:24 -0800 To: Lincoln Lavoie , =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=c3=b8rup?= , Brandon Lo , Aaron Conole Cc: Ali Alnubani , David Marchand , Olivier Matz , "Chen, Zhaoyan" , dev , Andrew Rybchenko , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , ajitkhaparde@gmail.com, dpdk stable , Ajit Khaparde , dpdklab References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20210113132734.1636-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61593@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <92966272-dc5a-09c5-ca73-cb88dee43743@intel.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:42:20 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdklab] RE: [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" On 1/21/2021 4:35 PM, Lincoln Lavoie wrote: > Hi All, > > Trying to follow the specific conversation.  It is correct, the lab does not > list the specific throughput values achieved by the hardware, as that data can > be sensitive to the hardware vendors, etc. The purpose of the lab is to check > for degradations caused by patches, so the difference is really the important > factor.  The comparison is against a prior run on the same hardware, via the > DPDK main branch, so any delta should be caused by the specific patch changes > (excluding statistical "wiggle"). > > If the group would prefer, we could calculate additional references if desired > (i.e. difference from the last official release, or a monthly run of the > current, etc.).  We just need the community to define their needs, and we can > add this to the development queue. > Hi Brandon, Can you also put above to the backlog, to display the performance difference to the a fixed point, like a previous release or a previous LTS? Thanks, ferruh > Cheers, > Lincoln > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:29 AM Morten Brørup > wrote: > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org ] On > Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit > > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:19 AM > > > > On 1/15/2021 6:39 PM, Ali Alnubani wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Adding Ferruh and Zhaoyan, > > > > > >> Ali, > > >> > > >> You reported some performance regression, did you confirm it? > > >> If I get no reply by monday, I'll proceed with this patch. > > > > > > Sure I'll confirm by Monday. > > > > > > Doesn't the regression also reproduce on the Lab's Intel servers? > > > Even though the check iol-intel-Performance isn't failing, I can see > > that the throughput differences from expected for this patch are less > > than those of another patch that was tested only 20 minutes earlier. > > Both patches were applied to the same tree: > > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-January/173927.html > > > >> | 64         | 512     | 1.571                               | > > > > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-January/173919.html > > > >> | 64         | 512     | 2.698                               | > > > > > > Assuming that pw86457 doesn't have an effect on this test, it looks > > to me that this patch caused a regression in Intel hardware as well. > > > > > > Can someone update the baseline's expected values for the Intel NICs > > and rerun the test on this patch? > > > > > > > Zhaoyan said that the baseline is calculated dynamically, > > what I understand is baseline set based on previous days performance > > result, so > > it shouldn't require updating. > > That sounds smart! > > Perhaps another reference baseline could be added, for informational > purposes only: > Deviation from the performance of the last official release. > > > > > But cc'ed the lab for more details. > > > > -- > *Lincoln Lavoie* > Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies > 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824 > lylavoie@iol.unh.edu > https://www.iol.unh.edu > +1-603-674-2755 (m) >