Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free

[Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>]

Hi, All

Could we postpose this patch at least to rc2? We would like to conduct more investigations?

With best regards, Slava

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:32
> To: Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com>
> Cc: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>; Ferruh Yigit
> <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; zhaoyan.chen@intel.com; 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>; Slava
> Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Alexander Kozyrev
> <akozyrev@nvidia.com>
> 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fma
> > > ils.dpdk.org%2Farchives%2Ftest-report%2F2021-
> January%2F173927.html&a
> > >
> mp;data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo%40nvidia.com%7Ce2d18a8563fb42dfaba40
> 8d
> > >
> 8bc54c83b%7C43083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C63746641
> 96385
> > >
> 80374%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu
> MzIiLC
> > >
> JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=VGvj%2F5GcAOxof6C
> mlZkq
> > > KXKOL52GctXcuL5RJXr1y8g%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > > > | 64         | 512     | 1.571                               |
> > >
> > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fma
> > > ils.dpdk.org%2Farchives%2Ftest-report%2F2021-
> January%2F173919.html&a
> > >
> mp;data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo%40nvidia.com%7Ce2d18a8563fb42dfaba40
> 8d
> > >
> 8bc54c83b%7C43083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C63746641
> 96385
> > >
> 80374%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu
> MzIiLC
> > >
> JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=XSirRbm5G0WwfxySe
> b0ALp
> > > owVosqoY6Nlv4UZCd1CZM%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > > > | 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