Hi Thomas, On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 10:47:34AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > What's the follow-up for this patch?
Unfortunatly, I still don't have the time to work on this topic yet. In my initial tests, in our lab, I didn't notice any performance regression, but Ali has seen an impact (0.5M PPS, but I don't know how much in percent). > 19/01/2021 15:04, Slava Ovsiienko: > > Hi, All > > > > Could we postpose this patch at least to rc2? We would like to conduct more > > investigations? > > > > With best regards, Slava > > > > From: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > > 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 > > > > [...] Statu quo... Olivier > > > > > 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 > > > >
