From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] arch/arm: optimization for memcpy on
	AArch64
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:03:48 +0100
Message-ID: <3668269.EoJLONrpA4@xps>
References: <1511768985-21639-1-git-send-email-herbert.guan@arm.com>
 <1515061208-27252-1-git-send-email-herbert.guan@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com
To: Herbert Guan <herbert.guan@arm.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DC52951
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:04:18 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <1515061208-27252-1-git-send-email-herbert.guan@arm.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi,

All the code is using ARM64, but the title suggests AArch64.
What is the difference between AArch64 and ARM64 (and ARMv8)?

04/01/2018 11:20, Herbert Guan:
> +/**************************************
> + * Beginning of customization section
> + **************************************/
> +#define RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGN_MASK 0x0F
> +#ifndef RTE_ARCH_ARM64_MEMCPY_STRICT_ALIGN
> +/* Only src unalignment will be treaed as unaligned copy */

typo: treaed

> +#define RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) \
> +	((uintptr_t)(dst) & RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGN_MASK)
> +#else
> +/* Both dst and src unalignment will be treated as unaligned copy */
> +#define RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) \
> +	(((uintptr_t)(dst) | (uintptr_t)(src)) & RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGN_MASK)
> +#endif
> +
> +
> +/*
> + * If copy size is larger than threshold, memcpy() will be used.
> + * Run "memcpy_perf_autotest" to determine the proper threshold.
> + */
> +#define RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGNED_THRESHOLD       ((size_t)(0xffffffff))
> +#define RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_UNALIGNED_THRESHOLD     ((size_t)(0xffffffff))
> +
> +/*
> + * The logic of USE_RTE_MEMCPY() can also be modified to best fit platform.
> + */
> +#define USE_RTE_MEMCPY(dst, src, n) \
> +((!RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) && \
> +n <= RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGNED_THRESHOLD) \
> +|| (RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) && \
> +n <= RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_UNALIGNED_THRESHOLD))
> +
> +/**************************************
> + * End of customization section
> + **************************************/

Modifying the code to asjust the platform is not easy for deployment.
Can we move some customization variables inside the configuration file?