patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Lincoln Lavoie" <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: "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>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [dpdklab] RE: [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:57:05 +0100
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61599@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOE1vsOiqbT=81wk7wZ8gv3caM9YjdOng4ezgxme0o6L7Zy5PA@mail.gmail.com>

> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Lincoln Lavoie
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 5:35 PM
> To: Morten Brørup
> 
> 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 discussion before accepting the patch. Showing the difference in packets per second requires the reader of the test report to have prior knowledge about the expected 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 explained how your baselining works, and I think it fully serves the needs of a regression test.

So please just put this small change in your development queue: Output the 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, and increases as positive, e.g.:

Difference = (NewPPS - BaselinePPS) / BaselinePPS * 100.00 %.


If we want to compare performance against official releases, current or older, it should go elsewhere, not in the continuous testing environment. E.g. the release notes could include a report showing differences from the last few official releases. But that is a task for another day.


> Cheers,
> Lincoln
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:29 AM Morten Brørup
> <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>


  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-23  9:53 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               ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Morten Brørup
2021-01-19 14:03                 ` 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             ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2021-01-25 17:00               ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [dpdklab] " 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=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61599@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
    --to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=ajitkhaparde@gmail.com \
    --cc=alialnu@nvidia.com \
    --cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dpdklab@iol.unh.edu \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=lylavoie@iol.unh.edu \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --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