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

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/19/2021 8:53 AM, Morten Brørup wrote:
> Could someone at Intel please update the test script to provide output according to the test plan? Or delegate to the right person.
> 
> According to the test plan, the information requested by Olivier should be in the test output already:
> http://git.dpdk.org/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/nic_single_core_perf_test_plan.rst?h=next
> 
> 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. :-)
> 

Hi Morten,

Ali has a request to update the expected baseline, to be able to detect the 
performance drops, let me internally figure out who can do this.

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

> 
> Med venlig hilsen / kind regards
> - Morten Brørup
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:32 AM
>> To: Ali Alnubani
>> Cc: David Marchand; Ferruh Yigit; zhaoyan.chen at intel.com; dev; Andrew
>> Rybchenko; Ananyev, Konstantin; Morten Brørup; ajitkhaparde at gmail.com;
>> 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:
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - 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
>