From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pawel Wodkowski <pawelx.wodkowski-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clean up rte_memcpy.h file
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:32:27 +0200
Message-ID: <552E05FB.30504@intel.com>
References: <1429047011-11545-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com>
 <1429047113-11688-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <1429047113-11688-1-git-send-email-rkerur-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>

On 2015-04-14 23:31, Ravi Kerur wrote:
> +
> +		for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
> +			ymm = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)(src + i * 32));
> +			_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)(dst + i * 32), ymm);
> +		}
> +
>   		n -= 256;
> -		ymm1 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t *)src + 1 * 32));
> -		ymm2 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t *)src + 2 * 32));
> -		ymm3 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t *)src + 3 * 32));
> -		ymm4 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t *)src + 4 * 32));
> -		ymm5 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t *)src + 5 * 32));
> -		ymm6 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t *)src + 6 * 32));
> -		ymm7 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t *)src + 7 * 32));
> -		src = (const uint8_t *)src + 256;
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 0 * 32), ymm0);
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 1 * 32), ymm1);
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 2 * 32), ymm2);
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 3 * 32), ymm3);
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 4 * 32), ymm4);
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 5 * 32), ymm5);
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 6 * 32), ymm6);
> -		_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 7 * 32), ymm7);
> -		dst = (uint8_t *)dst + 256;
> +		src = src + 256;
> +		dst = dst + 256;
>   	}

Did you perform a performance test on that part?

-- 
Pawel