From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <stable-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77D7A0A0B for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:00:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F83140FE4; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:00:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f41.google.com (mail-io1-f41.google.com [209.85.166.41]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5B3140FDC for <stable@dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:00:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io1-f41.google.com with SMTP id u17so27993017iow.1 for <stable@dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:00:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EWjF3YneW3njElyE2jkyRlLkRNtiWzzLU4x8pjYsJgA=; b=T8BYPeQAo8SINXk272GGeP6jlhULCaO+mTQnyg8SBVCRuKrvsNUpaTttmGnKL/c9gy uYCoQwDSwI0Cu3bwE6MdjX5eiOX1OoquwKwmJ1PayJE7EWK2lnb4YJ3JaAlIUPrtWXJD vjgsIucK4IyPnWRJnI+LeRp6QDMcYPLkrYGsk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EWjF3YneW3njElyE2jkyRlLkRNtiWzzLU4x8pjYsJgA=; b=ruPYWEAV1cH0yIpWiVqcZB6DPDcgZ0k3CcG7Flybk6pGLg01NhxE3tVs2wJl42FJqP 0fiy0WcysXj6uA42jeRQekuDK8w8fVor6CKsSmkb0fzczkCARDDVS6sX2OEKTaK51mj7 jbsVrXefoxW7cwbhEo0Un0LUqQE4dM6buhQS7myiavdnbMa0fSc0iyqYM3wHF8Pqx+p4 M8YPhCHj2TD1oIoV0jJKCrR1pxauqMJAhg70juIo0dcQ289Z1jnU48DxRhgevB8vfTfJ 1hJ6ttDie0Ps6KNeNF+l4+0IT/tfdHCUx5Xc2wZ33b1r3CXOHhWL9Uunt/6acdtOS0tA /wSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BaXLeMZQVghTMQSeZiz3vP5b52/O1vK0BSj42p6px7NLnfdSh ZVQisQOk/aw3I3xFWeMqQZZhKykY6hHKnkNpGcVgsA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJ2CYyC2I6dFPJ/BzLRlC0HnNDsTL1q8lDjVzCEr8mGhSUyzDPvAU6ZQ5A3o/HKOJ88L0hZp5jjwNoIVAyBS4= X-Received: by 2002:a02:3843:: with SMTP id v3mr1467212jae.70.1611594053546; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:00:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20210113132734.1636-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <CAJFAV8zDhz_5nhk9Q1TPvWOoq+Zw9pi2uSC3_cB9TaAo6bhgaw@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR12MB1472B93E0149FC2BA84F69C3DAA70@MWHPR12MB1472.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> <b772062b-1f96-1ce4-de55-9efda4047310@intel.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61593@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <CAOE1vsOiqbT=81wk7wZ8gv3caM9YjdOng4ezgxme0o6L7Zy5PA@mail.gmail.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61599@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61599@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: Brandon Lo <blo@iol.unh.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:00:18 -0500 Message-ID: <CAOeXdvbNe+Zhzk26XM_0Lw+wKt_s5UREj35XevWLUKLJp0LO2Q@mail.gmail.com> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com> Cc: Lincoln Lavoie <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com>, David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, "Chen, Zhaoyan" <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>, dpdklab <dpdklab@iol.unh.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [dpdklab] RE: [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 <stable.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/> List-Post: <mailto:stable@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/stable>, <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" <stable-bounces@dpdk.org> Hi, This seems like a good task for us to do. I will see what it would take in order to convert the difference into a decimal-formatted percentage. I have put this into bugzilla to keep track of this issue: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D626 Thanks, Brandon On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 3:57 AM Morten Br=C3=B8rup <mb@smartsharesystems.co= m> wrote: > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Lincoln Lavoie > > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 5:35 PM > > To: Morten Br=C3=B8rup > > > > Hi All, > > > > Trying to follow the specific conversation. It is correct, the lab > > does > > not list the specific throughput values achieved by the hardware, as > > that > > data can be sensitive to the hardware vendors, etc. The purpose of the > > lab > > is to check for degradations caused by patches, so the difference is > > really > > the important factor. The comparison is against a prior run on the > > same > > hardware, via the DPDK main branch, so any delta should be caused by > > the > > specific patch changes (excluding statistical "wiggle"). > > > > Thank you for clarifying, Lincoln. > > This sounds like a perfect solution to the meet the purpose. > > I request that you change the output to show the relative difference (i.e= . percentage above/below baseline), instead of the absolute difference (i.e= . number of packets per second). > > By showing a percentage, anyone reading the test report can understand if= the difference is insignificant, or big enough to require further discussi= on before accepting the patch. Showing the difference in packets per second= requires the reader of the test report to have prior knowledge about the e= xpected performance. > > > If the group would prefer, we could calculate additional references if > > desired (i.e. difference from the last official release, or a monthly > > run > > of the current, etc.). We just need the community to define their > > needs, > > and we can add this to the development queue. > > > > I retract my suggestion about adding additional references. You clearly e= xplained how your baselining works, and I think it fully serves the needs o= f a regression test. > > So please just put this small change in your development queue: Output th= e difference in percent with a few decimals after the comma, instead of the= difference in packets per second. > > For readability, performance drops should be shown as negative values, an= d increases as positive, e.g.: > > Difference =3D (NewPPS - BaselinePPS) / BaselinePPS * 100.00 %. > > > If we want to compare performance against official releases, current or o= lder, it should go elsewhere, not in the continuous testing environment. E.= g. the release notes could include a report showing differences from the la= st few official releases. But that is a task for another day. > > > > Cheers, > > Lincoln > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:29 AM Morten Br=C3=B8rup > > <mb@smartsharesystems.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:19 AM > > > > > > > > On 1/15/2021 6:39 PM, Ali Alnubani wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zhaoyan said that the baseline is calculated dynamically, > > > > what I understand is baseline set based on previous days > > performance > > > > result, so > > > > it shouldn't require updating. > > > > > > That sounds smart! > > > > > > Perhaps another reference baseline could be added, for informational > > > purposes only: > > > Deviation from the performance of the last official release. > > > > > > > > > > > But cc'ed the lab for more details. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Lincoln Lavoie* > > Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies > > 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824 > > lylavoie@iol.unh.edu > > https://www.iol.unh.edu > > +1-603-674-2755 (m) > > <https://www.iol.unh.edu> > --=20 Brandon Lo UNH InterOperability Laboratory 21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824 blo@iol.unh.edu www.iol.unh.edu