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