patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Ferruh Yigit" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"Olivier Matz" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	"Ali Alnubani" <alialnu@nvidia.com>
Cc: "David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	<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>,
	"Slava Ovsiienko" <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
	"Alexander Kozyrev" <akozyrev@nvidia.com>,
	"Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:27:41 +0100
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61587@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <85424972-00f8-f810-2e2c-c8fbb8923752@intel.com>

> 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.

> >
> > 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 <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://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
> >
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-19 12:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-04 17:00 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] " Olivier Matz
2020-11-05  0:15 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-11-05  7:46   ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05  8:33     ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2020-11-05  9:03       ` Olivier Matz
2020-11-05  9:09     ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-11-08  7:25 ` Ali Alnubani
2020-12-18 12:52 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Olivier Matz
2020-12-18 13:18   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2020-12-18 23:33     ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-01-06 13:33 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Olivier Matz
2021-01-10  9:28   ` Ali Alnubani
2021-01-11 13:14   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-01-13 13:27 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] " Olivier Matz
2021-01-15 13:59   ` David Marchand
2021-01-15 18:39     ` Ali Alnubani
2021-01-18 17:52       ` Ali Alnubani
2021-01-19  8:32         ` Olivier Matz
2021-01-19  8:53           ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-19 12:00             ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-19 12:27               ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2021-01-19 14:03                 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-19 14:21                   ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-21  9:15                     ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-19 14:04           ` [dpdk-stable] " Slava Ovsiienko
2021-07-24  8:47             ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-30 12:36               ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-30 14:35                 ` Morten Brørup
2021-07-30 14:54                   ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-07-30 15:14                     ` Olivier Matz
2021-07-30 15:23                       ` Morten Brørup
2021-01-21  9:19       ` [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-21  9:29         ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2021-01-21 16:35           ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdklab] " Lincoln Lavoie
2021-01-23  8:57             ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [dpdklab] " Morten Brørup
2021-01-25 17:00               ` Brandon Lo
2021-01-25 18:42             ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdklab] RE: [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-15 13:56   ` [dpdk-stable] " Morten Brørup

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61587@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
    --to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=ajitkhaparde@gmail.com \
    --cc=akozyrev@nvidia.com \
    --cc=alialnu@nvidia.com \
    --cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.com \
    --cc=zhaoyan.chen@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

patches for DPDK stable branches

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 stable/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 stable stable/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \
		stable@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index stable

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.stable


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git