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 5BF7FA0547; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:26:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8F94116A; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:26:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wnew3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wnew3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.17]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9DB40142 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:26:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624AA2B00475; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:26:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:26:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= 5kp8h0lMssChaiaXny9AQQzZ3jp9EG+02WaJaoEvtpo=; b=i9WlZb/vMRCenTbs TsWsZf4FpVx8Sl7aact7mb8tAHMRkI2mXu3XVnw91IVvHlVozanLDOKNCiZR7Wku 3F5UPv7jEe9f79SQvbhPnvlXiH/qXCuvyW9c+4EcRmWRzfEA7SYiRX9aU79peDNM EFey2J51bnN3LvTMmQYTpDXtONKy2+7+SyTtl4lbRq6x36fwnOL8yfwPBnwagy1a ZBsPdiXqqTOQXdkVTqSd6nhm9t1ckKDm5i64kmvye200vNpmPT0oE7aHA9pBbJl5 qb7Mf5emOhLUxYtFKZlxx5XfJJKhy7FtndGB48zYKvA1xt1Ch/zBj981MPqe/Cop kiVa+w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=5kp8h0lMssChaiaXny9AQQzZ3jp9EG+02WaJaoEvt po=; b=EY8w4c2rcM27eThmhJzLSncxuu534jmEdWuLyIeWaBBXaXzp+GLD1ZXnn rQ95u0ua2apgfXUcO8d9kp5sFX8E+Ouh7U6TEiY9UG3yjWVark0i2jdp7TZCEzcZ aoHtQ68kKGzh0/R4X2ccJqtkE1vCxEGENrIv2OrlkELUR5zvaQz/iS9hS5At9Lo5 cgrO+Cl4D2B5J2yGDsBCAngABMWenG3Vbc2neW2Fo9wBonF7+CJoLWz6mQAh3ABx 2ogD1PnzU1cQHBk0bkAxdAIF4e3/e6RBDpb3R/vlt/EoHGEN8iaB3Bth5NfCRoVR XVc60tJSj/23P1MT3wEZAUC0XnogQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddviedgtdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdvffejueetleefieeludduuefgteejleevfeekjeefieegheet ffdvkeefgedunecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhn rdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:26:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Olivier Matz , Ali Alnubani Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Alexander Kozyrev , Ferruh Yigit , Slava Ovsiienko , "zhaoyan.chen@intel.com" , Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , Andrew Rybchenko , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Ajit Khaparde , "jerinj@marvell.com" Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:26:39 +0200 Message-ID: <3517790.gJWL0G04Iv@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 30/09/2021 15:29, Ali Alnubani: > From: Olivier Matz > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 08:03:17AM +0000, Ali Alnubani wrote: > > > Hi Olivier, > > > > > > I wanted to retest the patch on latest main, but it no longer applies, could > > you please rebase it? > > > > I rebased the patch: > > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210929213707.17727-1- > > olivier.matz@6wind.com/ > > Thanks for the update, > I tested v5 on main (84b3e4555a1f) and the regression we previously saw no longer reproduces. > > Will the patch be backported to 20.11? I can still reproduce a 2% drop in single core packet forwarding performance with v4 applied on v20.11.3. As any significant fix, we must backport, or at least, try. If there is a real issue in a stable branch, we'll discuss it in the test&release process of this branch.