patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.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 14:03:16 +0000
Message-ID: <9b4153c0-3642-fb19-deb8-e344fea0f26c@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61587@smartserver.smartshare.dk>

On 1/19/2021 12:27 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> 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.
> 

Ahh, this has a history, when the initial community lab infrastructure prepared 
some vendor(s) didn't want to show the actual throughput numbers.

That is why this diff and baseline introduced, and this is the how current 
infrastructure works. So this is not something related to Intel.

And as you can imagine this is not a technical issue, some companies seems not 
willing to share their performance numbers via community lab, and I don't know 
if something changed here in last a few years.


>>>
>>> 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 14:05 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 [this message]
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=9b4153c0-3642-fb19-deb8-e344fea0f26c@intel.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@intel.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=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.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