From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 06/11] mbuf: replace data pointer by an offset Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:09:28 +0200 Message-ID: <1520868.8Zgzi5QM8B@xps13> References: <1399647038-15095-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20140512183943.GC21298@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <1FD9B82B8BF2CF418D9A1000154491D9740AA95E@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: "Venkatesan, Venky" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1FD9B82B8BF2CF418D9A1000154491D9740AA95E-P5GAC/sN6hlcIJlls4ac1rfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Hi Venky, 2014-05-13 13:54, Venkatesan, Venky: > An alternative way to save 6 bytes (without the side effects this change > has) would be to change the mempool struct * to a uint16_t mempool_id. That > limits the changes to a return function, and the performance impact of that > can be mitigated quite easily. It's very difficult to compare things without code examples. Please, provide: - a patch for your proposal - an example application which allows to test and understand the performance issue you are pointing out PS: please don't top post, it makes this thread difficult to read -- Thomas