Hi, All

Could we postpose this patch at least to rc2? We would like to conduct more investigations?

With best regards, Slava

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Matz <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:32
To: Ali Alnubani <redacted>
Cc: David Marchand <redacted>; Ferruh Yigit
[off-list ref]; zhaoyan.chen@intel.com; dev [off-list ref];
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]; Slava
Ovsiienko [off-list ref]; Alexander Kozyrev
[off-list ref]
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).

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 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fma
ils.dpdk.org%2Farchives%2Ftest-report%2F2021-

January%2F173927.html&a

quoted

quoted

mp;data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo%40nvidia.com%7Ce2d18a8563fb42dfaba40
8d

quoted

quoted

8bc54c83b%7C43083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C63746641
96385

quoted

quoted

80374%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu
MzIiLC

quoted

quoted

JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=VGvj%2F5GcAOxof6C
mlZkq

quoted

quoted

KXKOL52GctXcuL5RJXr1y8g%3D&reserved=0

quoted

| 64         | 512     | 1.571                               |

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fma
ils.dpdk.org%2Farchives%2Ftest-report%2F2021-

January%2F173919.html&a

quoted

quoted

mp;data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo%40nvidia.com%7Ce2d18a8563fb42dfaba40
8d

quoted

quoted

8bc54c83b%7C43083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C63746641
96385

quoted

quoted

80374%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu
MzIiLC

quoted

quoted

JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=XSirRbm5G0WwfxySe
b0ALp

quoted

quoted

owVosqoY6Nlv4UZCd1CZM%3D&reserved=0

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