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 A23DFA0A04 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:32:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D67140D55; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:32:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wr1-f45.google.com (mail-wr1-f45.google.com [209.85.221.45]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663D5140D44 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:32:28 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 7so11563823wrz.0 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:32:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=rqwiaJKObjUvTz0MFsnlJfT4UPQ77ql8JdcG+hCIsME=; b=IEyBWntJdhUlrBEcHtPf+/86WsLIHDT7v/myJZ/zoMDSge2awdMIQMbFMV2af1XfVr BC+Es9Cpk82AsMuqF1V593Y4BCGRg9DiiE+XnbsGO9e8KxGNPOGxksdXbDdr+q/vdDTX ByCr0ZNx2BiNCIsLX2r/v3XoDvRA4leTXCc6GpquKhrPR1JACt2xFGX/KxsJUuo1VHPc ZivlIlqmyX3eQT8jbs2OBrFLxMM3Vg2akmbVClYeqVWa6Xfr0mf5yPiSThmBLK8KsL9d j/WwvfnyiP5heyfG6hB/jDbOvckHwgkzTUXWGey/JwjOBvA79KTe0dNq1+4usWHOLVLI 1vkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rqwiaJKObjUvTz0MFsnlJfT4UPQ77ql8JdcG+hCIsME=; b=AcRNdgJLEOd9Uu0uwYOrF3XJ4LVAKeQqf4aID/1ZEXdza5AgZSY+Kwymoc6S2fjM17 NXGLZzL13lXRHnVIXmNfSlSMMj6oywXq8A1pQkSFhhy4wA69GRu0IzKuilQaf8CRO4kz +0XqH1zybb4S2a2M0g33oyxe3UI4hvzl+VyQ8zvbWuJJsG8dn8oKAjCl9i8NHaZlK+dQ lX8hrApqIhccvwwake9wwYogAODDSJM8/tI8uCyiIV/u7ckGFUshCxcHImpDV4Tn8OHQ iokTDeMxrpw9xVqMaPPCw+taxvwXg6MnNIrCyP+zHMo8HntImtkt+atmRnW+B0Ip9U6g lCMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533gD6sgJZnd2Gt+iZyAWQaXG4MEngygfyzsjZmfJTsjT6cvgxpl 5SBHaJx+MAiD3AUjO1UA+ZwYSg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzkQBWPc9a6hh4anKoJhfgrXvi0FIrtJ0lmSynC7OYbMvnTtseAE+hZ7wbOMekxPC01eimi9Q== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fa86:: with SMTP id h6mr3087645wrr.103.1611045148117; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:32:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from 6wind.com ([2a01:e0a:5ac:6460:c065:401d:87eb:9b25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 62sm3505994wmd.34.2021.01.19.00.32.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:32:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:32:26 +0100 From: Olivier Matz To: Ali Alnubani Cc: David Marchand , Ferruh Yigit , "zhaoyan.chen@intel.com" , dev , Andrew Rybchenko , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Morten =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , "ajitkhaparde@gmail.com" , dpdk stable , Ajit Khaparde , Slava Ovsiienko , Alexander Kozyrev Message-ID: <20210119083226.GA2855@platinum> References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20210113132734.1636-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" Hi Ali, 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 server 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 soon (sorry for that). So I see at least these 2 options: - postpone the patch again, until I can find more time to analyze and optimize - apply the patch if the performance loss is acceptable compared to the added value of fixing a bug Regards, Olivier > > - Ali > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ali Alnubani > > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:39 PM > > To: David Marchand ; Olivier Matz > > ; Ferruh Yigit ; > > zhaoyan.chen@intel.com > > Cc: dev ; Andrew Rybchenko > > ; Ananyev, Konstantin > > ; Morten Brørup > > ; ajitkhaparde@gmail.com; dpdk stable > > ; Ajit Khaparde > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free > > > > 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? > > > > Thanks, > > Ali