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 E84DEA0C51 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:47:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99FC410DF; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:47:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21024067A; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:47:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266AD5816B0; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 04:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 24 Jul 2021 04:47:13 -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= LCmXwuxAwIkCiS5axKSEpD+nXqgPujgMq0DI/JYuplg=; b=VZxPsjz4P4N06L1T yAS4KW+RS7TypxGHkkcjvcYjwHQba8nO9lgxi54zv8yRZEBkC+2Rq+xCa7Zq+Q5Q bjeI4vjWNE1ETzgMJbv1urdPzPvBW1PmQaU+oJ+T3o9iIDimWjxrEsgaazCAwWSP dXLIwIciNHtdrt4VxDdof2E0e1HU7iA/LJmeeHGBcB4O77fxvf1Ac0WpykDWpllL Ovz/VWp/BTom3wGmzsxr7/XLK5RWxTgLzpb52K8G95plSBsS9MPBb7Dzu1EMS8JZ k6UmAQziRW0zxrf0KCGzlEPFks20gbcuiP6E0FiYnIcsiR6lBm/2vxDqniPZun0I ZDnEPw== 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=LCmXwuxAwIkCiS5axKSEpD+nXqgPujgMq0DI/JYup lg=; b=r3skSe8tnWTK2ce5W1C97vPqmASum+bP7eYtDhtVcoB83O9kLcHoyxec8 UV+BTa5WKfal5le7ds598CWdm9qCh1xw90TXIMUtwqvNxTK1T/nB9RehSoj1RoVT 2A3kmo+IfT/ixWlxHqCShXJtugmessPLZy4jVZ5HX+nRHZeOXIC9yyqPLTKQiuc+ lx4wTgR8lHd6pDhsJNxLZL04MgL4o25BqzQDDJxmsqsSpI5p4HtIuE5hfOcmOR4/ t7cXgDGyxdTQtq74MMwzoj2GwvYKe0doKiXEv3RFwRi5BS32KWm+eeasI95v2WXH 4z7I6bGWLDIQPQE/DJbY8rAOk6wUg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrgedtgddtjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 04:47:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Olivier Matz , Ali Alnubani , David Marchand , Alexander Kozyrev , Slava Ovsiienko Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit , "zhaoyan.chen@intel.com" , Andrew Rybchenko , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , "ajitkhaparde@gmail.com" , dpdk stable , Ajit Khaparde Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:47:34 +0200 Message-ID: <3026375.dAcfTszmW5@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20210119083226.GA2855@platinum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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" What's the follow-up for this patch? 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 > > > > Regards, > > Olivier > > [...] > > > > 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