> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@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.
