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 580C0A0A06 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:01:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47552140DDA; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:01:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF5A140D68; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:01:01 +0100 (CET) IronPort-SDR: TRotvwXiIVhi7/t61o5wCqZ97WFLRmZLjcjZgcbJbis6g3z9OCLh0AGp9KSkUjXDbol/WFj+zx UcWIVsMELC2A== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9868"; a="158094546" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,358,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="158094546" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jan 2021 04:01:00 -0800 IronPort-SDR: oqUlgY9G/FMbGP/+SdYegufzVF8hR3Rua6lsn7MzIcakuBAhK73dbbV28B5FgJiMZwKSSXYB8E DdxdG5OP0+pA== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,358,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="426443408" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.241.104]) ([10.213.241.104]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jan 2021 04:00:57 -0800 To: =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=c3=b8rup?= , Olivier Matz , Ali Alnubani Cc: David Marchand , zhaoyan.chen@intel.com, dev , Andrew Rybchenko , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , ajitkhaparde@gmail.com, dpdk stable , Ajit Khaparde , Slava Ovsiienko , Alexander Kozyrev , Bruce Richardson References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20210113132734.1636-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20210119083226.GA2855@platinum> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61584@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <85424972-00f8-f810-2e2c-c8fbb8923752@intel.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:00:53 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61584@smartserver.smartshare.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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" On 1/19/2021 8:53 AM, Morten Brørup wrote: > Could someone at Intel please update the test script to provide output according to the test plan? Or delegate to the right person. > > According to the test plan, the information requested by Olivier should be in the test output already: > http://git.dpdk.org/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/nic_single_core_perf_test_plan.rst?h=next > > PS: I can't find out who is the maintainer of the test plan, so I'm randomly pointing my finger at the test plan doc copyright holder. :-) > Hi Morten, Ali has a request to update the expected baseline, to be able to detect the performance drops, let me internally figure out who can do this. And do you have any other request, or asking same thing? > > Med venlig hilsen / kind regards > - Morten Brørup > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:32 AM >> To: Ali Alnubani >> Cc: David Marchand; Ferruh Yigit; zhaoyan.chen@intel.com; dev; Andrew >> Rybchenko; Ananyev, Konstantin; Morten Brørup; ajitkhaparde@gmail.com; >> dpdk stable; Ajit Khaparde; Slava Ovsiienko; Alexander Kozyrev >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free >> >> 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 >