From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:19 AM

On 1/15/2021 6:39 PM, Ali Alnubani wrote:

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?
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:

quoted

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.

quoted

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

and rerun the test on this patch?

quoted

Zhaoyan said that the baseline is calculated dynamically,
what I understand is baseline set based on previous days performance
result, so
it shouldn't require updating.

That sounds smart!

Perhaps another reference baseline could be added, for informational purposes only:
Deviation from the performance of the last official release.

But cc'ed the lab for more details.