Hi,

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 04:54:05PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

30/07/2021 16:35, Morten Brørup:

quoted

quoted

From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
Sent: Friday, 30 July 2021 14.37

Hi Thomas,

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 10:47:34AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

quoted

What's the follow-up for this patch?

Unfortunatly, I still don't have the time to work on this topic yet.

In my initial tests, in our lab, I didn't notice any performance
regression, but Ali has seen an impact (0.5M PPS, but I don't know how
much in percent).

quoted

19/01/2021 15:04, Slava Ovsiienko:

quoted

Hi, All

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

conduct more investigations?

quoted

quoted

With best regards, Slava

From: Olivier Matz <redacted>

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

Just confirming that I can still reproduce the regression with

single core and

quoted

quoted

quoted

64B frames on other servers.

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

amount of

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

suppose it is

quoted

quoted

quoted

testpmd io forward).

Unfortunatly, I won't be able to spend a lot of time on this soon

(sorry for

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

  the added value of fixing a bug

[...]

Statu quo...

Olivier

The decision should be simple:

Does the DPDK project support segmented packets?
If yes, then apply the patch to fix the bug!

If anyone seriously cares about the regression it introduces, optimization patches are welcome later. We shouldn't wait for it.

You're right, but the regression is flagged to a 4-years old patch,
that's why I don't consider it as urgent.

quoted

If the patch is not applied, the documentation must be updated to mention that we are releasing DPDK with a known bug: that segmented packets are handled incorrectly in the scenario described in this patch.

Yes, would be good to document the known issue,
no matter how old it is.

The problem description could be something like this:

  It is expected that free mbufs have their field m->nb_seg set to 1, so
  that when it is allocated, the user does not need to set its
  value. The mbuf free functions are responsible of resetting this field
  to 1 before returning the mbuf to the pool.

  When a multi-segment mbuf is freed, the m->nb_seg field is not reset
  to 1 for the last segment of the chain. On next allocation of this
  segment, if the field is not explicitly reset by the user, an invalid
  mbuf can be created, and can cause an undefined behavior.

quoted

Generally, there could be some performance to gain by not supporting segmented packets at all, as a compile time option. But that is a different discussion.


-Morten