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 50D4FA0C45 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:54:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C00F4067A; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:54:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com (new3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.229]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0D44003F; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:54:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64E3580B1A; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:54:10 -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=fm1; bh= IUwNkOx72c5RJTnk/fi5Vlu77CdilUmVkH18EtgYJSQ=; b=WcZEpROiQwMuL0rR TJw/kpc5YaMEF8blhBN2z+9iHQvv6iJBCgg1Vuh1Y4BpxkgDPW5uaCdWPWqfpDQH scuWlt/7nOkv9eoLE0fw2j2zvOC7TJpFq8qoZ1KQddCN47AoaFpU30NBG6GtnDDz wJFAcssoslT4YRJbX5O64i01yHFjMI8ChmSgHzFe4krPuEWuYSIEfvGL5xIkNasK VR6k54G/VS5p/7xEzzkMVJwso41HIxy7E65p2KmGtz6U3JXaAgTjVX9fjLZvdOIY D9robAjEXHn29GCnRvGwsA9VOB4kbnANDRcEBYse/+mLjSEOtq71/HPSkWYaaN4E jXvRQA== 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=IUwNkOx72c5RJTnk/fi5Vlu77CdilUmVkH18EtgYJ SQ=; b=EKwECruNpIUU8eUoxpeuf3z54zOThrHzXGMjNMLLa4opFizCfHn7ZawIo uycURrS0h7aGmIVVCf61gMCxU5BvcpqLBBMzWeWYAti/Jz+egT8VupXIDMGkT0wX iPVorLMrTelo6FNTPPvMNlZqR/29Z0WvnQjFRAT3//5/oN/DqUSg+IadNK902zBP kMf7AycDjR6ue/MjqWm6FKtF+9fNqkoRFqEOIpevWCD5fX4S2rjbPqUmEkkPZeTm ZhtRPDonZIlxZHf6d6B/htpXOe4GNn9TX139/ipW2B+DKN2cAY41Lcer+kWfcpQw NwFTRS+pya8lQNMLm1bpj95hmt4+g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrheehgdejiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtudenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeefgeffiefhfeettdfhvdfgteekffffudekvedtvedtvdfgveeuudev gedvgeegtdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:54:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= Cc: Olivier Matz , Ali Alnubani , David Marchand , Alexander Kozyrev , Slava Ovsiienko , dev@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit , zhaoyan.chen@intel.com, Andrew Rybchenko , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , ajitkhaparde@gmail.com, dpdk stable , Ajit Khaparde Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:54:05 +0200 Message-ID: <2065212.rItNS1eAF1@thomas> In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61945@smartserver.smartshare.dk> References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61945@smartserver.smartshare.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [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" 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 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 > > > > > > > > [...] > >=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, optimizatio= n patches are welcome later. We shouldn't wait for it. You're right, but the regression is flagged to a 4-years old patch, that's why I don't consider it as urgent. > If the patch is not applied, the documentation must be updated to mention= that we are releasing DPDK with a known bug: that segmented packets are ha= ndled incorrectly in the scenario described in this patch. Yes, would be good to document the known issue, no matter how old it is. > Generally, there could be some performance to gain by not supporting segm= ented packets at all, as a compile time option. But that is a different dis= cussion. >=20 >=20 > -Morten