From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Zhihong Wang <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev,v2] Clean up rte_memcpy.h file
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:18:35 -0500
Message-ID: <1453954715-31723-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com>
References: <1429562009-11817-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: rkerur@gmail.com
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA4CC3E6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:22:01 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <1429562009-11817-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

> Remove unnecessary type casting in functions.
> 
> Tested on Ubuntu (14.04 x86_64) with "make test".
> "make test" results match the results with baseline.
> "Memcpy perf" results match the results with baseline.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com>
> Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> 
> ---
> .../common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h           | 340 +++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 175 insertions(+), 165 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h
> index 6a57426..839d4ec 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h
 
[...]
 
>  /**
> @@ -150,13 +150,16 @@ rte_mov64blocks(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src, size_t n)
>  	__m256i ymm0, ymm1;
>  
>  	while (n >= 64) {
> -		ymm0 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t *)src + 0 * 32));
> +
> +		ymm0 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)(src + 0 * 32));
> +		ymm1 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)(src + 1 * 32));
> +
> +		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)(dst + 0 * 32), ymm0);
> +		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)(dst + 1 * 32), ymm1);
> +
 
Any particular reason to change the order of the statements here? :)
Overall this patch looks good.
 
>  		n -= 64;
> -		ymm1 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t *)src + 1 * 32));
> -		src = (const uint8_t *)src + 64;
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 0 * 32), ymm0);
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 1 * 32), ymm1);
> -		dst = (uint8_t *)dst + 64;
> +		src = src + 64;
> +		dst = dst + 64;
>  	}
>  }
>