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

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Ali Alnubani <redacted>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:39 PM
To: David Marchand <redacted>; Olivier Matz
[off-list ref]; Ferruh Yigit [off-list ref];
zhaoyan.chen@intel.com
Cc: dev <redacted>; Andrew Rybchenko
[off-list ref]; Ananyev, Konstantin
[off-list ref]; Morten Brørup
[off-list ref]; ajitkhaparde@gmail.com; dpdk stable
[off-list ref]; Ajit Khaparde [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free

Hi,
Adding Ferruh and Zhaoyan,

quoted

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

quoted

| 64         | 512     | 1.571                               |

https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-January/173919.html

quoted

| 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