> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@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.m...@6wind.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:32 AM > >> To: Ali Alnubani > >> Cc: David Marchand; Ferruh Yigit; zhaoyan.c...@intel.com; dev; > Andrew > >> Rybchenko; Ananyev, Konstantin; Morten Brørup; > ajitkhapa...@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 <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 > > >
