Re: [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2017-03-31 09:18, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > > I replayed my tests, and I can also see a performance loss with 1c/1t
> > > > (ixgbe), not in the same magnitude however. Here is what I have in MPPS:
> > > >
> > > > 1c/1t   1c/2t
> > > > 53.3    58.7     current
> > > > 52.1    58.8     original patchset
> > > > 53.3    58.8     removed patches 3 and 9
> > > > 53.1    58.7     with konstantin's patch
> > > >
> > > > So we have 2 options here:
> > > >
> > > > 1/ integrate Konstantin's patch in the patchset (thank you, by the way)
> > > > 2/ remove patch 3, and keep it for later until we have something that
> > > >    really no impact
> > > >
> > > > I'd prefer 1/, knowing that the difference is really small in terms
> > > > of cycles per packet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 1 is certainly the more attractive option. However, I think we can
> > > afford to spend a little more time looking at this before we decide.
> > > I'll try and check out the perf numbers I get with i40e with
> > > Konstantin's patch today. We also need to double check the other
> > > possible issues he reported in his other emails. While I don't want this
> > > patchset held up for a long time, I think an extra 24/48 hours is
> > > probably needed on it.
> > >
> > 
> > Yes, now that we have the "test momentum", try not to loose it ;)
> > 
> > I'm guilty to have missed the performance loss, but honnestly,
> > I'm a bit sad that nobody tried to this patchset before (it
> > is available for more than 2 months), knowing this is probably one of
> > the most critical part of dpdk. I think we need to be better next
> > time.
> > 
> > Anyway, thank you for your test and feedback now.
> 
> I am also leaning towards option 1, but agree that some extra testing first
> need to be done before making the final decision.
> BTW, path #9 need to be removed anyway, even if will go for path #1.
> Konstantin

Please, can we have a conclusion now?