On 1/19/2021 2:21 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:

quoted

From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:03 PM

On 1/19/2021 12:27 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:

quoted

quoted

From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:01 PM

On 1/19/2021 8:53 AM, Morten Brørup wrote:

quoted

Could someone at Intel please update the test script to provide

output according to the test plan? Or delegate to the right person.

quoted

According to the test plan, the information requested by Olivier

should be in the test output already:

quoted

http://git.dpdk.org/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/nic_single_core_perf_test

quoted

quoted

_plan.rst?h=next

quoted

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.

:-)

quoted

quoted

quoted

Hi Morten,

Ali has a request to update the expected baseline, to be able to

detect

quoted

quoted

the
performance drops, let me internally figure out who can do this.

And do you have any other request, or asking same thing?

Hi Ferruh,

I am asking for something else:

The test script does not provide the output that its documentation

says that it does.

quoted

Apparently, the test script for nic_single_core_perf produces an

output table with these four columns (as seen at
https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/15142/#env-18):

quoted

     +--------+--------------------+-----------------------+----------

--------------------+

quoted

     | Result | frame_size (bytes) | txd/rxd (descriptors) |

throughput Difference (Mpps) |

quoted

     +--------+--------------------+-----------------------+----------

--------------------+

quoted

     | PASS   | 64                 | 512                   | 1.57100

|

quoted

     +--------+--------------------+-----------------------+----------

--------------------+

quoted

     | PASS   | 64                 | 2048                  | 1.87500

|

quoted

     +--------+--------------------+-----------------------+----------

--------------------+

quoted

But the test plan documentation (at

http://git.dpdk.org/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/nic_single_core_perf_test
_plan.rst) says that this output should be produced:

quoted

     +------------+---------+-------------+---------+-----------------

----+

quoted

     | Frame Size | TXD/RXD |  Throughput |   Rate  | Expected

Throughput |

quoted

     +------------+---------+-------------+---------+-----------------

----+

quoted

     |     64     |   512   | xxxxxx Mpps |   xxx % |     xxx    Mpps

|

quoted

     +------------+---------+-------------+---------+-----------------

----+

quoted

     |     64     |   2048  | xxxxxx Mpps |   xxx % |     xxx    Mpps

|

quoted

     +------------+---------+-------------+---------+-----------------

----+

quoted

Olivier and I am saying that only showing the Throughput Difference

(Mpps) does not provide any perspective to the result.

quoted

I am requesting that the Expected Throughput (Mpps) should be shown

in the result too, as documented in the test plan.

quoted

Ahh, this has a history, when the initial community lab infrastructure
prepared
some vendor(s) didn't want to show the actual throughput numbers.

That is why this diff and baseline introduced, and this is the how
current
infrastructure works. So this is not something related to Intel.

And as you can imagine this is not a technical issue, some companies
seems not
willing to share their performance numbers via community lab, and I
don't know
if something changed here in last a few years.

That explains it!

If those companies still want to keep the community lab performance data hidden (which I don't object to), wouldn't it be better if the performance test scripts output the deviation from the expected throughput in percent (with one or two decimals after the comma) instead of in Mpps?

Sounds reasonable, I assume there is a reason behind it but I don't remember, 
cc'ed lab.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Med venlig hilsen / kind regards
- Morten Brørup

quoted

-----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

quoted

quoted

Rybchenko; Ananyev, Konstantin; Morten Brørup;

ajitkhaparde@gmail.com;

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

core and 64B frames on other servers.

Many thanks for the feedback. Can you please detail what is the

amount

quoted

quoted

of performance loss in percent, and confirm the test case? (I

suppose

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

     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

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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?

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

those of

quoted

quoted

another patch that was tested only 20 minutes earlier. Both

patches

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

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