On 10/5/21 16:45, Stokes, Ian wrote: > 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? >> >> My point is that we should refrain from adding new features in this >> area until we have a proper CI. Especially considering the unit test >> failure you reported yesterday, which is supposedly related to AVX512 >> optimizations. >> > > Hi Ilya, > > Apologies for the delay in response, I've been on PTO the past 2 weeks so > only catching up now.
No problem. I just got from my PTO too. > > There is an ongoing effort to deploy an AVX512 CI. Aaron, Michael and myself > have started to look at this. I think the initial target was to have > something up and running by EOY. > >> // Marking this patch-set as deferred for now. > > Agree with marking this deferred for now. > > However I don’t think this should be dependent on delivery of the CI as that > could be some time away yet. I think if we are to run the tests manually on > an AVX512 system (We could even run it on the system that has been setup and > reserved for the CI in the Intel Lab) and post results in response/part of > the review of the series that should help progress the series in the meantime? Yes, sure. As long as there is some progress with a CI and tests could be run manually for patches in meantime during reviews, there should be no problem with having development going. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > Thanks > Ian > >> >> Best regards, Ilya Maximets _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
