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 DF6A942B21 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 10:42:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D657340C35; Tue, 16 May 2023 10:42:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DDA74068E for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 10:42:00 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1684226520; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=e1b8f1i1+sT8UgVwC1/boy0aFEBFQz7d2gmIvYlnud4=; b=BnC0u3YWH0eEpFfIY9PAwcTJHnq6FtsvEVseUs0wx1f4yHnb9eDmM1qkan2DqpZ49D0u+b Z7dbnU1eetf3yXw/mhJ8Ox3XGLPSqge019u26FThlrZTtUzOmpvj5Z1IBewLXvS996E9Bo Ycdvi1GK+nPc4anTO03rmjWunvmJVsM= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-674-IOdPVT2DO5OxLbsjZVlllA-1; Tue, 16 May 2023 04:41:59 -0400 X-MC-Unique: IOdPVT2DO5OxLbsjZVlllA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f4221cd284so35588535e9.0 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 01:41:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684226518; x=1686818518; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:subject:from:references:cc:to :content-language:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=e1b8f1i1+sT8UgVwC1/boy0aFEBFQz7d2gmIvYlnud4=; b=aOKvOQQwGkecgwF+pCAUVV6q6987h8Y+L34bKb7YR0JjvKLyRhM1551NRNhqyyIn8E UbI+YKzoEItngfspemFVXF5BbB6gQiAr3ON/vBWldCuNhCI80eTh0AKrXl1uf7AhNMG9 H9FTojLT0WdD5Y8cNP095iyD7t+m/rOR3LZ45evK/dtJOzuiFy5tJfoY/02QCd8JRgSy Fx323zYMPAVixyX/tE1rcHzf4WsaJtimeGGcSUB2OObfnqAPaqHePgQggeUaH673ycf6 J/kA1S8ZZTpnNDLO5lurW/pSKNoDvEkbx+JkUkWpOo264y5IaDpR2u/cmGKbzBMwkKEK bFVA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxIpLuUTTMv1bR9C7Qs4oxQna0odMV9ulGnuSbngNvcpcgsG6+Q OWRD8AZvG2rYvQgoxV7wAQL6Rgf1q3iOtNu2iA0UKLGyI99N5jcZ8YQhp5b8fDlrsKGCpQK4F77 MaP0SS7M= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3657:b0:3f4:2267:10cf with SMTP id y23-20020a05600c365700b003f4226710cfmr20070529wmq.32.1684226518058; Tue, 16 May 2023 01:41:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7s9CwEDFQISenDiBehfYJT2a4qb/ZlLAVAn/1ZMA3jOw848qW9ELhrdoKBQUPw+8R0o8iXpQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3657:b0:3f4:2267:10cf with SMTP id y23-20020a05600c365700b003f4226710cfmr20070512wmq.32.1684226517699; Tue, 16 May 2023 01:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.36] ([78.19.110.151]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s5-20020a7bc385000000b003f19b3d89e9sm1501744wmj.33.2023.05.16.01.41.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 May 2023 01:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5c9e42c1-54c3-4e04-3769-f190a7d04ba5@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 09:41:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 To: "Jiang, YuX" , "Xu, HailinX" , "stable@dpdk.org" , "boleslav.stankevich@oktetlabs.ru" , "maxime.coquelin@redhat.com" , "Xia, Chenbo" , "Ji, Kai" Cc: "Stokes, Ian" , "Mcnamara, John" , Luca Boccassi , "Xu, Qian Q" , Thomas Monjalon , "Peng, Yuan" , "Chen, Zhaoyan" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <20230406113734.261672-1-ktraynor@redhat.com> <630da282-4ce1-4e2c-b6f7-7c333c51da2c@redhat.com> <34c532ab-e66c-af60-2c79-40a6f16bd7ed@redhat.com> <37eb3699-24fa-f46e-59bf-bea99007bd03@redhat.com> From: Kevin Traynor Subject: Re: 21.11.4 patches review and test In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 On 11/05/2023 08:33, Jiang, YuX wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kevin Traynor >> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 11:24 PM >> To: Xu, HailinX ; stable@dpdk.org >> Cc: Stokes, Ian ; Mcnamara, John >> ; Luca Boccassi ; Xu, Qian Q >> ; Thomas Monjalon ; Peng, >> Yuan ; Chen, Zhaoyan ; >> dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: 21.11.4 patches review and test >> >> On 05/05/2023 02:42, Xu, HailinX wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Kevin Traynor >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 6:11 PM >>>> To: Xu, HailinX ; stable@dpdk.org >>>> Cc: Stokes, Ian ; Mcnamara, John >>>> ; Luca Boccassi ; Xu, >> Qian >>>> Q ; Thomas Monjalon ; >> Peng, >>>> Yuan ; Chen, Zhaoyan >> ; >>>> dev@dpdk.org >>>> Subject: Re: 21.11.4 patches review and test >>>> >>>> On 04/05/2023 03:13, Xu, HailinX wrote: >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Kevin Traynor >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 5:35 PM >>>>>> To: Xu, HailinX ; stable@dpdk.org >>>>>> Cc: Stokes, Ian ; Mcnamara, John >>>>>> ; Luca Boccassi ; Xu, >>>>>> Qian Q ; Thomas Monjalon >>>>>> ; >>>> Peng, >>>>>> Yuan ; Chen, Zhaoyan >> ; >>>>>> dev@dpdk.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: 21.11.4 patches review and test >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20/04/2023 11:32, Kevin Traynor wrote: >>>>>>> On 20/04/2023 03:40, Xu, HailinX wrote: >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Xu, HailinX >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 2:13 PM >>>>>>>>> To: Kevin Traynor ; stable@dpdk.org >>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Abhishek Marathe >>>>>> ; >>>>>>>>> Ali Alnubani ; Walker, Benjamin >>>>>>>>> ; David Christensen >>>>>>>>> ; Hemant Agrawal >>>>>> ; >>>>>>>>> Stokes, Ian ; Jerin Jacob >>>>>>>>> ; Mcnamara, John >> ; >>>>>>>>> Ju-Hyoung Lee ; Luca Boccassi >>>>>>>>> ; Pei Zhang ; Xu, Qian >> Q >>>>>>>>> ; Raslan Darawsheh ; >>>>>> Thomas >>>>>>>>> Monjalon ; yanghliu@redhat.com; Peng, >> Yuan >>>>>>>>> ; Chen, Zhaoyan >> >>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: 21.11.4 patches review and test >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Kevin Traynor >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 7:38 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: stable@dpdk.org >>>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Abhishek Marathe >>>>>>>>>> ; Ali Alnubani >>>>>>>>>> ; Walker, Benjamin >>>>>>>>>> ; David Christensen >>>>>>>>>> ; Hemant Agrawal >>>>>>>>>> ; Stokes, Ian >> ; >>>>>>>>>> Jerin Jacob ; Mcnamara, John >>>>>>>>>> ; Ju-Hyoung Lee >>>> ; >>>>>>>>>> Kevin Traynor ; Luca Boccassi >>>>>>>>>> ; Pei Zhang ; Xu, >> Qian Q >>>>>>>>>> ; Raslan Darawsheh ; >>>>>>>>> Thomas >>>>>>>>>> Monjalon ; yanghliu@redhat.com; Peng, >> Yuan >>>>>>>>>> ; Chen, Zhaoyan >> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: 21.11.4 patches review and test >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here is a list of patches targeted for stable release 21.11.4. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The planned date for the final release is 25th April. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please help with testing and validation of your use cases and >>>>>>>>>> report any issues/results with reply-all to this mail. For the >>>>>>>>>> final release the fixes and reported validations will be added >>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>> release notes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A release candidate tarball can be found at: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable/tag/?id=v21.11.4-rc1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These patches are located at branch 21.11 of dpdk-stable repo: >>>>>>>>>> https://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HI All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Update the test status for Intel part. Till now dpdk21.11.4-rc1 >>>>>>>>> validation test rate is 85%. No critical issue is found. >>>>>>>>> 2 new bugs are found, 1 new issue is under confirming by Intel Dev. >>>>>>>>> New bugs: --20.11.8-rc1 also has these two issues >>>>>>>>> 1. >>>>>> >> pvp_qemu_multi_paths_port_restart:perf_pvp_qemu_vector_rx_mac: >>>>>>>>> performance drop about 23.5% when send small packets >>>>>>>>> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1212 -- no fix yet >>>>>>>>> 2. some of the virtio tests are failing: -- Intel dev is under >>>>>> investigating >>>>>>>>> # Basic Intel(R) NIC testing >>>>>>>>> * Build & CFLAG compile: cover the build test combination with >>>>>>>>> latest GCC/Clang version and the popular OS revision such as >>>>>>>>> Ubuntu20.04, Ubuntu22.04, Fedora35, Fedora37, RHEL8.6, >>>>>>>>> RHEL8.4, FreeBSD13.1, SUSE15, CentOS7.9, etc. >>>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>>> * PF(i40e, ixgbe): test scenarios including >>>>>>>>> RTE_FLOW/TSO/Jumboframe/checksum offload/VLAN/VXLAN, etc. >>>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>>> * VF(i40e, ixgbe): test scenarios including >>>>>>>>> VF-RTE_FLOW/TSO/Jumboframe/checksum offload/VLAN/VXLAN, >> etc. >>>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>>> * PF/VF(ice): test scenarios including Switch features/Package >>>>>>>>> Management/Flow Director/Advanced Tx/Advanced >>>> RSS/ACL/DCF/Flexible >>>>>>>>> Descriptor, etc. >>>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>>> * Intel NIC single core/NIC performance: test scenarios >>>>>>>>> including PF/VF single core performance test, etc. >>>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>>> * IPsec: test scenarios including ipsec/ipsec-gw/ipsec library >>>>>>>>> basic test - QAT&SW/FIB library, etc. >>>>>>>>> - On going. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> # Basic cryptodev and virtio testing >>>>>>>>> * Virtio: both function and performance test are covered. Such >>>>>>>>> as PVP/Virtio_loopback/virtio-user loopback/virtio-net VM2VM >>>>>>>>> perf testing/VMAWARE ESXI 8.0, etc. >>>>>>>>> - All test done. found bug1. >>>>>>>>> * Cryptodev: >>>>>>>>> *Function test: test scenarios including Cryptodev API >>>>>>>>> testing/CompressDev ISA-L/QAT/ZLIB PMD Testing/FIPS, etc. >>>>>>>>> - Execution rate is 90%. found bug2. >>>>>>>>> *Performance test: test scenarios including Thoughput >>>>>>>>> Performance/Cryptodev Latency, etc. >>>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Xu, Hailin >>>>>>>> Update the test status for Intel part. completed dpdk21.11.4-rc1 >>>>>>>> all >>>>>> validation. No critical issue is found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi. Thanks for testing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2 new bugs are found, 1 new issue is under confirming by Intel Dev. >>>>>>>> New bugs: --20.11.8-rc1 also has these two issues >>>>>>>> 1. >>>>>> >> pvp_qemu_multi_paths_port_restart:perf_pvp_qemu_vector_rx_mac: >>>>>> performance drop about 23.5% when send small packets >>>>>>>> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1212 --not fix yet, >> Only >>>>>>>> the specified platform exists >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know which patch caaused the regression? I'm not fully >>>>>>> clear from the Bz for 20.11. The backported patch ID'd as root >>>>>>> cause [0] in >>>>>>> 20.11 is in the previous releases of 20.11 (and 21.11). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trying to understand because then it would have shown in testing >>>>>>> for previous releases. Or is this a new test introduced for latest >>>>>>> LTS releases? and if so, what is the baseline performance based on? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [0] >>>>>>> commit 1c9a7fba5c90e0422b517404499ed106f647bcff >>>>>>> Author: Mattias Rönnblom >>>>>>> Date: Mon Jul 11 14:11:32 2022 +0200 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> net: accept unaligned data in checksum routines >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. some of the virtio tests are failing: -- Intel dev is >>>>>>>> under investigating >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ok, thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, it was mentioned in a separate mail that the performance drop >>>>>> issue was not the same as 20.11. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there any update on that and the failing virtio tests ? Is there >>>>>> a regression introduced since in 21.11.4 ? >>>>> >>>>> Found bad commit id: >>>>> commit c41493361c87e730459ead9311c68528eb0874aa >>>>> Author: Boleslav Stankevich >>>>> Date:   Fri Mar 3 14:19:29 2023 +0300 >>>>>     net/virtio: deduce IP length for TSO checksum >>>>> >>>>> We try this issue on 3 different platforms Performance drop only >>>>> found on Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8280M CPU @ 2.70GHz CPU. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, thanks for reporting. This commit was also in 23.03 and 20.11.8 >>>> so not sure if they were tested on this platform? >>>> >>> Yes, But 23.03 doesn't have such issue on the same platform >>> >> >> ok, thanks. >> >>>> This commit fixes a functional issue, so I don't think it should be >>>> removed unless it is critical issue. >>>> >>>> There's no update on other performance report. Release is already 1 >>>> week overdue, is there critical issues that we should hold release for? >>>> >>> No other issues found >>> >> >> I'm not fully clear on the status, so let's separate. There were two reported >> issues. >> >> 1. Performance drop on specific Intel platform. >> - Is this being investigated by Intel dev? >> - Is it is a release blocking issue ? >> >> 2. Virtio issue caused by >> >> commit c41493361c87e730459ead9311c68528eb0874aa >> Author: Boleslav Stankevich >> Date: Fri Mar 3 14:19:29 2023 +0300 >> net/virtio: deduce IP length for TSO checksum >> >> - Is this being investigated by Intel dev? >> - Is it is a release blocking issue ? >> >> thanks, >> Kevin. >> > Hi Kevin, > Hi Yu Jang, Thanks for the information. > I need correct/clarify the description of the two issues: > 1, Performance drop on specific Intel platform -> should be pvp_qemu_multi_paths_port_restart:perf_pvp_qemu_vector_rx_mac: Benchmark pvp performance drop about 23.5% when send small packets" > Its bad commit id: > commit c41493361c87e730459ead9311c68528eb0874aa > Author: Boleslav Stankevich > Date: Fri Mar 3 14:19:29 2023 +0300 > > net/virtio: deduce IP length for TSO checksum > > [ upstream commit d069c80a5d8c0a05033932421851cdb7159de0df ] > > The length of TSO payload could not fit into 16 bits provided by the > IPv4 total length and IPv6 payload length fields. Thus, deduce it > from the length of the packet. > > Fixes: 696573046e9e ("net/virtio: support TSO") > > Signed-off-by: Boleslav Stankevich > Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko > Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin > > Intel validation owner has done lots of verification and compared these performance data on 8280&8380 platforms. > This performance big drop is only found on special platform (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8280M CPU @ 2.70GHz CPU) when vhost-user(back-end) > and virtio-pmd(front-end) are not on the same socket (front-end is on the socket1, back-end and nic are on the socket0). > But our test case doesn't call this bad commit id's related code, suspect whether it may be related to compiler optimization on special platform. > We hope the bad commit id owner or other experts can support to analysis the root cause. > ok, for this one, it is a performance drop on a single test on a specific Intel platform and inter-socket related. It does not appear to be related to the commit being ID'd. To revert the commit would re-introduce a functional issue. > 2, Virtio issue -> should be virtio crypto test failure. > It is not a regression issue, old lts and main branch also reproduce by validation owner, and there's no clear bad commit id found. > Intel dev and validation owner are investigating it, but we don't find out the root cause yet. > ok, this is not a regression in 21.11.4. On that basis, I will go ahead with the 21.11.4 release tomorrow. If there's any objection please let me know by end of day today. thanks, Kevin. > Best regards, > Yu Jiang > >>> Regards, >>> Xu, Hailin >>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Kevin. >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Xu, Hailin >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks, >>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Kevin. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> # Basic Intel(R) NIC testing >>>>>>>> * Build & CFLAG compile: cover the build test combination with >>>>>>>> latest >>>>>> GCC/Clang version and the popular OS revision such as >>>>>>>> Ubuntu20.04, Ubuntu22.04, Fedora35, Fedora37, RHEL8.6, >>>>>>>> RHEL8.4, >>>>>> FreeBSD13.1, SUSE15, CentOS7.9, etc. >>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>> * PF(i40e, ixgbe): test scenarios including >>>>>> RTE_FLOW/TSO/Jumboframe/checksum offload/VLAN/VXLAN, etc. >>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>> * VF(i40e, ixgbe): test scenarios including >>>>>> VF-RTE_FLOW/TSO/Jumboframe/checksum offload/VLAN/VXLAN, etc. >>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>> * PF/VF(ice): test scenarios including Switch features/Package >>>>>> Management/Flow Director/Advanced Tx/Advanced >> RSS/ACL/DCF/Flexible >>>>>> Descriptor, etc. >>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>> * Intel NIC single core/NIC performance: test scenarios including >>>>>>>> PF/VF >>>>>> single core performance test, etc. >>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>> * IPsec: test scenarios including ipsec/ipsec-gw/ipsec library >>>>>>>> basic test - >>>>>> QAT&SW/FIB library, etc. >>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> # Basic cryptodev and virtio testing >>>>>>>> * Virtio: both function and performance test are covered. Such as >>>>>> PVP/Virtio_loopback/virtio-user loopback/virtio-net VM2VM perf >>>>>> testing/VMAWARE ESXI 8.0, etc. >>>>>>>> - All test done. found bug1. >>>>>>>> * Cryptodev: >>>>>>>> *Function test: test scenarios including Cryptodev API >>>>>> testing/CompressDev ISA-L/QAT/ZLIB PMD Testing/FIPS, etc. >>>>>>>> - All test done. found bug2. >>>>>>>> *Performance test: test scenarios including Thoughput >>>>>> Performance/Cryptodev Latency, etc. >>>>>>>> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Xu, Hailin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >