[dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free

[Ali Alnubani]

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.

- Ali

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ali Alnubani <alialnu at nvidia.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:39 PM
> To: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>; Olivier Matz
> <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>;
> zhaoyan.chen at intel.com
> Cc: dev <dev at dpdk.org>; Andrew Rybchenko
> <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Morten Brørup
> <mb at smartsharesystems.com>; ajitkhaparde at gmail.com; dpdk stable
> <stable at dpdk.org>; Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde at broadcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free
> 
> Hi,
> Adding Ferruh and Zhaoyan,
> 
> > 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://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-January/173927.html
> > | 64         | 512     | 1.571                               |
> 
> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-January/173919.html
> > | 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