All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas.monjalon@6wind.com,
	bruce.richardson@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mempool: replace c memcpy code semantics with optimized rte_memcpy
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 18:04:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <576D5A15.9030705@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5763D397.8060900@6wind.com>



On 06/17/2016 12:40 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Jerin,
> 
> On 06/03/2016 09:02 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:16:16PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>> Hi Olivier,
>>
>>> This is probably more a measure of the pure CPU cost of the mempool
>>> function, without considering the memory cache aspect. So, of course,
>>> a real use-case test should be done to confirm or not that it increases
>>> the performance. I'll manage to do a test and let you know the result.
>>
>> OK
>>
>> IMO, put rte_memcpy makes sense(this patch) as their no behavior change.
>> However, if get rte_memcpy with behavioral changes makes sense some platform
>> then we can enable it on conditional basics(I am OK with that)
>>
>>>
>>> By the way, not all drivers are allocating or freeing the mbufs by
>>> bulk, so this modification would only affect these ones. What driver
>>> are you using for your test?
>>
>> I have tested with ThunderX nicvf pmd(uses the bulk mode).
>> Recently sent out driver in ml for review
> 
> Just to let you know I do not forget this. I still need to
> find some time to do a performance test.


Quoting from the other thread [1] too to save this in patchwork:
[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-June/042701.html


> On 06/24/2016 05:56 PM, Hunt, David wrote:
>> Hi Jerin,
>>
>> I just ran a couple of tests on this patch on the latest master head on
>> a couple of machines. An older quad socket E5-4650 and a quad socket
>> E5-2699 v3
>>
>> E5-4650:
>> I'm seeing a gain of 2% for un-cached tests and a gain of 9% on the
>> cached tests.
>>
>> E5-2699 v3:
>> I'm seeing a loss of 0.1% for un-cached tests and a gain of 11% on the
>> cached tests.
>>
>> This is purely the autotest comparison, I don't have traffic generator
>> results. But based on the above, I don't think there are any performance
>> issues with the patch.
>>
> 
> Thanks for doing the test on your side. I think it's probably enough
> to integrate Jerin's patch .
> 
> About using a rte_memcpy() in the mempool_get(), I don't think I'll have
> the time to do a more exhaustive test before the 16.07, so I'll come
> back with it later.
> 
> I'm sending an ack on the v2 thread.


Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-24 16:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-24 14:50 [PATCH] mbuf: replace c memcpy code semantics with optimized rte_memcpy Jerin Jacob
2016-05-24 14:59 ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-24 15:17   ` Jerin Jacob
2016-05-27 10:24     ` Hunt, David
2016-05-27 11:42       ` Jerin Jacob
2016-05-27 15:05         ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-05-30  8:44           ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-27 13:45       ` Hunt, David
2016-06-24 15:56     ` Hunt, David
2016-06-24 16:02       ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-26  8:07 ` [PATCH v2] mempool: " Jerin Jacob
2016-05-30  8:45   ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-31 12:58     ` Jerin Jacob
2016-05-31 21:05       ` Olivier MATZ
2016-06-01  7:00         ` Jerin Jacob
2016-06-02  7:36           ` Olivier MATZ
2016-06-02  9:39             ` Jerin Jacob
2016-06-02 21:16               ` Olivier MATZ
2016-06-03  7:02                 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-06-17 10:40                   ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-24 16:04                     ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2016-06-30  9:41   ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-06-30 11:38     ` Jerin Jacob
2016-06-30 12:16   ` [PATCH v3] " Jerin Jacob
2016-06-30 17:28     ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-07-05  8:43       ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-07-05 11:32         ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-07-05 13:13           ` Jerin Jacob
2016-07-05 13:42             ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-07-05 14:09             ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-07-06 16:21               ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-07-07 13:51                 ` Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=576D5A15.9030705@6wind.com \
    --to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.