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 80B84A09E4 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:37:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FBA6140D04; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:37:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ej1-f52.google.com (mail-ej1-f52.google.com [209.85.218.52]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B771A140D04 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:37:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ej1-f52.google.com with SMTP id gx5so3498595ejb.7 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:37:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ttSkRS2gVHhipTT6HgnNoDsqOt6EEKP96yBTUkbDMDE=; b=NlEvQok+wR1ThaPhSPR+VRLP2sp0T3L/NIwdIEHJdoUTHrcUZJQDZs6fUCvScxaPsM KA7xRgVCcEoGz1XuX17Hh5hrA3loxKYJC4ubXsaBxHWcP7W/+Dhog/IJrD7LDL2hPgKQ 9PloHi2ZLGNE3NuXlQWX0rlqvqGGRE8eASRcM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ttSkRS2gVHhipTT6HgnNoDsqOt6EEKP96yBTUkbDMDE=; b=bPskzoV/c+Tp+jItslCTFD7oX4DxC5S7bpK3TxTSesIInzpwVFj3TqIFU1PiwLkQU2 1sJaqgxhUdihaYjGCnfE2jAbDUqCamfP7iPDnl7DDS9ImCsR6vjWs2S2NyUxjcESCYyV j31VFhEtlQcbowlwB9lQ/pJ8rfD3LDwAneAV/PpOgAuOqAsBllVYh9L1KBWWIT0pPTPx wbo2AB8yoXXC+UL2B+bcQQHsmVNRBabnz6rrDOXQNOrBQk9P6t7VhdaSZLtjeO0jW8W/ cev1vRvTFfFZOUakxf6fzEdQ6ZJxZyxHFZvaTxxXUX2iFquQ98ME4t+DGU1kV6Kb3Gyv 1M4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qRaT9BQGo2Bl7CDt7exU6OK8crPc1mpVWryMY0qhgombb25nk a9aWUfKSoG3CIg8NQwxZ4L8ol2l4DeN/jpcO3ey31w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzU0tCT1O32Brh/7tgwaVidBgy0U2e59AeLWYMIpIHjvTiXdNz380MKgRbrAgV/yNjji+TVSHPQD77fzItduGs= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5002:: with SMTP id s2mr227919ejj.16.1611247037390; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:37:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201104170007.8026-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20210113132734.1636-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61593@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61593@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: Lincoln Lavoie Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:35:10 -0500 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= Cc: Ferruh Yigit , Ali Alnubani , David Marchand , Olivier Matz , "Chen, Zhaoyan" , dev , Andrew Rybchenko , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , ajitkhaparde@gmail.com, dpdk stable , Ajit Khaparde , dpdklab Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdklab] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" 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"). 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. Cheers, Lincoln On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:29 AM Morten Br=C3=B8rup 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. > > --=20 *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)