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. :-)


Med venlig hilsen / kind regards
- Morten Brørup

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:32 AM
To: Ali Alnubani
Cc: David Marchand; Ferruh Yigit; zhaoyan.chen@intel.com; dev; Andrew
Rybchenko; Ananyev, Konstantin; Morten Brørup; ajitkhaparde@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:

quoted

Hi,
(Sorry had to resend this to some recipients due to mail server

problems).

quoted

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

quoted

- 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

quoted

quoted

throughput differences from expected for this patch are less than

those of

quoted

quoted

another patch that was tested only 20 minutes earlier. Both patches

were

quoted

quoted

applied to the same tree:

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

January/173927.html

quoted

quoted

quoted

| 64         | 512     | 1.571                               |

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

January/173919.html

quoted

quoted

quoted

| 64         | 512     | 2.698                               |

Assuming that pw86457 doesn't have an effect on this test, it looks

to me

quoted

quoted

that this patch caused a regression in Intel hardware as well.

Can someone update the baseline's expected values for the Intel

NICs and

quoted

quoted

rerun the test on this patch?

Thanks,
Ali