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

[Olivier Matz]

Hi Thomas,

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


> 19/01/2021 15:04, Slava Ovsiienko:
> > Hi, All
> > 
> > Could we postpose this patch at least to rc2? We would like to conduct more investigations?
> > 
> > With best regards, Slava
> > 
> > From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>
> > > 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
> > > 
> [...]

Statu quo...

Olivier

> > > > > 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
> 
> 
> 
>