From: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Ferruh Yigit" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
"Olivier Matz" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"Ali Alnubani" <alialnu@nvidia.com>
Cc: "David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
<zhaoyan.chen@intel.com>, "dev" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Andrew Rybchenko" <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
<ajitkhaparde@gmail.com>, "dpdk stable" <stable@dpdk.org>,
"Ajit Khaparde" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
"Slava Ovsiienko" <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
"Alexander Kozyrev" <akozyrev@nvidia.com>,
"Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:27:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61587@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <85424972-00f8-f810-2e2c-c8fbb8923752@intel.com>
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:01 PM
>
> 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?
>
Hi Ferruh,
I am asking for something else:
The test script does not provide the output that its documentation says that it does.
Apparently, the test script for nic_single_core_perf produces an output table with these four columns (as seen at https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/15142/#env-18):
+--------+--------------------+-----------------------+------------------------------+
| Result | frame_size (bytes) | txd/rxd (descriptors) | throughput Difference (Mpps) |
+--------+--------------------+-----------------------+------------------------------+
| PASS | 64 | 512 | 1.57100 |
+--------+--------------------+-----------------------+------------------------------+
| PASS | 64 | 2048 | 1.87500 |
+--------+--------------------+-----------------------+------------------------------+
But the test plan documentation (at http://git.dpdk.org/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/nic_single_core_perf_test_plan.rst) says that this output should be produced:
+------------+---------+-------------+---------+---------------------+
| Frame Size | TXD/RXD | Throughput | Rate | Expected Throughput |
+------------+---------+-------------+---------+---------------------+
| 64 | 512 | xxxxxx Mpps | xxx % | xxx Mpps |
+------------+---------+-------------+---------+---------------------+
| 64 | 2048 | xxxxxx Mpps | xxx % | xxx Mpps |
+------------+---------+-------------+---------+---------------------+
Olivier and I am saying that only showing the Throughput Difference (Mpps) does not provide any perspective to the result.
I am requesting that the Expected Throughput (Mpps) should be shown in the result too, as documented in the test plan.
> >
> > 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 <alialnu@nvidia.com>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:39 PM
> >>>> To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>; Olivier Matz
> >>>> <olivier.matz@6wind.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>;
> >>>> zhaoyan.chen@intel.com
> >>>> Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Andrew Rybchenko
> >>>> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> >>>> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Morten Brørup
> >>>> <mb@smartsharesystems.com>; ajitkhaparde@gmail.com; dpdk stable
> >>>> <stable@dpdk.org>; Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
> >>>> 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
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-19 12:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-04 17:00 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] " Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 0:15 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-05 7:46 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 8:33 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2020-11-05 9:03 ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05 9:09 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-11-08 7:25 ` Ali Alnubani
2020-12-18 12:52 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Olivier Matz
2020-12-18 13:18 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2020-12-18 23:33 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-01-06 13:33 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Olivier Matz
2021-01-10 9:28 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-01-11 13:14 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-01-13 13:27 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] " Olivier Matz
2021-01-15 13:59 ` David Marchand
2021-01-15 18:39 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-01-18 17:52 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-01-19 8:32 ` Olivier Matz
2021-01-19 8:53 ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-19 12:00 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-19 12:27 ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2021-01-19 14:03 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-19 14:21 ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-21 9:15 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-19 14:04 ` [dpdk-stable] " Slava Ovsiienko
2021-07-24 8:47 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-30 12:36 ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-30 14:35 ` Morten Brørup
2021-07-30 14:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-30 15:14 ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-30 15:23 ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-21 9:19 ` [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-21 9:29 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2021-01-21 16:35 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdklab] " Lincoln Lavoie
2021-01-23 8:57 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [dpdklab] " Morten Brørup
2021-01-25 17:00 ` Brandon Lo
2021-01-25 18:42 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdklab] RE: [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-15 13:56 ` [dpdk-stable] " Morten Brørup
2021-09-29 21:37 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v5] " Olivier Matz
2021-09-30 13:27 ` Ali Alnubani
2021-10-21 9:18 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " David Marchand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61587@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
--to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=ajitkhaparde@gmail.com \
--cc=akozyrev@nvidia.com \
--cc=alialnu@nvidia.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.com \
--cc=zhaoyan.chen@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).