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 50843A0A05 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:05:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48635140E73; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:05:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18D3140E73; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:05:29 +0100 (CET) IronPort-SDR: vX0q4eRaYQWQC/D8AJ4jj1vi1H/Db3tw+LDVfb4zOERONJdKmitWHKQYnkcyqlfNKlnCDA5BeW nSooZpn6bIlA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9868"; a="158701750" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,359,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="158701750" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jan 2021 06:03:23 -0800 IronPort-SDR: NxUUqH4Wyf4CWKFGh5t3Q9EQ3is4dThvB6w17bgMoHbZ0pRblaQUNm4xljrTVNbXEyY0OPKoRa EEG2Gq/QqTwQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,359,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="426478880" 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 06:03:20 -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> <85424972-00f8-f810-2e2c-c8fbb8923752@intel.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61587@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <9b4153c0-3642-fb19-deb8-e344fea0f26c@intel.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:03:16 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61587@smartserver.smartshare.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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" On 1/19/2021 12:27 PM, Morten Brørup wrote: >> 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. > Ahh, this has a history, when the initial community lab infrastructure prepared some vendor(s) didn't want to show the actual throughput numbers. That is why this diff and baseline introduced, and this is the how current infrastructure works. So this is not something related to Intel. And as you can imagine this is not a technical issue, some companies seems not willing to share their performance numbers via community lab, and I don't know if something changed here in last a few years. >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >