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. - Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Alnubani <alia...@nvidia.com> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:39 PM > To: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>; Olivier Matz > <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; > zhaoyan.c...@intel.com > Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Andrew Rybchenko > <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Morten Brørup > <m...@smartsharesystems.com>; ajitkhapa...@gmail.com; dpdk stable > <sta...@dpdk.org>; Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khapa...@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
