Hi, All Could we postpose this patch at least to rc2? We would like to conduct more investigations?
With best regards, Slava > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:32 > To: Ali Alnubani <alia...@nvidia.com> > Cc: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>; Ferruh Yigit > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; zhaoyan.c...@intel.com; 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>; Slava > Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Alexander Kozyrev > <akozy...@nvidia.com> > 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fma > > > ils.dpdk.org%2Farchives%2Ftest-report%2F2021- > January%2F173927.html&a > > > > mp;data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo%40nvidia.com%7Ce2d18a8563fb42dfaba40 > 8d > > > > 8bc54c83b%7C43083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C63746641 > 96385 > > > > 80374%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu > MzIiLC > > > > JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=VGvj%2F5GcAOxof6C > mlZkq > > > KXKOL52GctXcuL5RJXr1y8g%3D&reserved=0 > > > > | 64 | 512 | 1.571 | > > > > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fma > > > ils.dpdk.org%2Farchives%2Ftest-report%2F2021- > January%2F173919.html&a > > > > mp;data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo%40nvidia.com%7Ce2d18a8563fb42dfaba40 > 8d > > > > 8bc54c83b%7C43083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C63746641 > 96385 > > > > 80374%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu > MzIiLC > > > > JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=XSirRbm5G0WwfxySe > b0ALp > > > owVosqoY6Nlv4UZCd1CZM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > | 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
