From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mempool: replace c memcpy code semantics
 with optimized rte_memcpy
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:32:07 +0530
Message-ID: <20160603070202.GA6153@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1464101442-10501-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <1464250025-9191-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <574BFD97.2010505@6wind.com>
 <20160531125822.GA10995@localhost.localdomain>
 <574DFC9A.2050304@6wind.com>
 <20160601070018.GA26922@localhost.localdomain>
 <574FE202.2060306@6wind.com>
 <20160602093936.GB6794@localhost.localdomain>
 <5750A220.6040804@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-bn1bon0060.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.56.111.60])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1355A4E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2016 09:02:30 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5750A220.6040804@6wind.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>

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

Jerin

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier
> 
>