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 D4FD1A0A0A for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:19:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C630A140F15; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:19:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC29D140EF9; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:19:19 +0100 (CET) IronPort-SDR: ZZP36LoafFNabNHbdG8RSZYwkzdjz4lFPAXMRTwOymSI6OAgoQMH/5d3KGRvBkc3RhKRheD8tO VPg2LCZh/91Q== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9870"; a="158420561" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,363,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="158420561" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jan 2021 01:19:19 -0800 IronPort-SDR: RvwSUlJn6n3FddlNmcgbwvQWqotTZpLt58Yoe0a/tdCZQKH3CReMil8sCSdnYuGWC2ayAqynH6 SW972EHD5kQA== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,363,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="356391639" Received: from ndduggan-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.196.87]) ([10.213.196.87]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jan 2021 01:19:16 -0800 To: Ali Alnubani , David Marchand , Olivier Matz , "zhaoyan.chen@intel.com" Cc: dev , Andrew Rybchenko , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=c3=b8rup?= , "ajitkhaparde@gmail.com" , dpdk stable , Ajit Khaparde , dpdklab@iol.unh.edu References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20210113132734.1636-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:19:14 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: 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 1/15/2021 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. But cc'ed the lab for more details.