On 9/28/21 19:13, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:45 PM >> To: Amber, Kumar <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Stokes, Ian >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Van Haaren, >> Harry <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] MFEX Optimizations IPv6 + Hashing >> >> On 9/21/21 12:23, Kumar Amber wrote: >>> --- >>> v3: >>> - rebase to master. >>> v2: >>> - fix the CI build. >>> - fix check-patch for co-author. >>> --- >>> >>> The patch-set introduces AVX512 optimizations of IPv6 >>> traffic profiles and hashing improvements for all AVX512 >>> supported traffic profiles for IPv4 and IPv6. >>> >>> Kumar Amber (6): >>> dpif-netdev/mfex: Add AVX512 basic ipv6 traffic profiles >>> dpif-netdev/mfex: Add AVX512 vlan ipv6 traffic profiles >>> dpif-netdev/mfex: Add packet hash check to autovalidator >>> dpif-netdev/mfex: Add ipv4 profile based hashing >>> dpif-netdev/mfex: Add ipv6 profile based hashing >>> dpif-netdev/mfex: Avoid hashing when opt mfex called >>> >>> NEWS | 7 + >>> lib/automake.mk | 1 + >>> lib/dpif-netdev-avx512.c | 6 +- >>> lib/dpif-netdev-extract-avx512.c | 348 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> lib/dpif-netdev-private-extract.c | 63 +++++- >>> lib/dpif-netdev-private-extract.h | 12 ++ >>> tests/pcap/mfex_test.pcap | Bin 416 -> 632 bytes >>> 7 files changed, 432 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >> >> Hi. A few months ago I was told that it's easy for Intel to set up CI >> to test upstream patches with AVX512 features enabled. Is there any >> progress on that front? > > Yes there is progress on that front, as you know Ian and Aaron are working on > that,
I didn't know that as this information is not public. > and status updates available if you're particularly interested in its > progress. I was interested, so I asked in this email. > >> My point is that we should refrain from adding new features in this >> area until we have a proper CI. > > There is already various CI efforts for OVS, and as you know there is ongoing > efforts > to add AVX512 specifically, and report back on patchwork. > >> Especially considering the unit test failure you reported yesterday, which is >> supposedly related to AVX512 optimizations. > > I don't know why you say this is related to AVX512 - it is not. See the > detailed reply > Amber sent with details of how the test-case assumed SW based murmur hash > output. Sure, now I know that problem was unrelated. But the more or less detailed reply was sent a week after my previous email, so I had no clue what was the actual problem with a test at the moment of writing and the week after. > >> // Marking this patch-set as deferred for now. > > This is not acceptable, deferring patchsets just because the AVX512 CI isn't > in place was never agreed on. > I do not like that AVX512 was "blamed" for the above unit-test failure, and > now other AVX512 patchsets > are being deferred and ignored as a result of that mistaken blame. > > @Amber, Kumar, please mark this v3 patchset as "new". > >> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > Regards, -Harry > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
