From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: replace c memcpy code semantics with
 optimized rte_memcpy
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:24:57 +0100
Message-ID: <57482079.1050605@intel.com>
References: <1464101442-10501-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <57446C63.4040605@6wind.com> <20160524151654.GA10870@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas.monjalon@6wind.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com,
 konstantin.ananyev@intel.com
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.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 639D6292D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 27 May 2016 12:25:01 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20160524151654.GA10870@localhost.localdomain>
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 5/24/2016 4:17 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:59:47PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
>
>> Are you seeing some performance improvement by using rte_memcpy()?
> Yes, In some case, In default case, It was replaced with memcpy by the
> compiler itself(gcc 5.3). But when I tried external mempool manager patch and
> then performance dropped almost 800Kpps. Debugging further it turns out that
> external mempool managers unrelated change was knocking out the memcpy.
> explicit rte_memcpy brought back 500Kpps. Remaing 300Kpps drop is still
> unknown(In my test setup, packets are in the local cache, so it must be
> something do with __mempool_put_bulk text alignment change or similar.
>
> Anyone else observed performance drop with external poolmanager?
>
> Jerin

Jerin,
     I'm seeing a 300kpps drop in throughput when I apply this on top of 
the external
mempool manager patch. If you're seeing an increase if you apply this 
patch first, then
a drop when applying the mempool manager, the two patches must be 
conflicting in
some way. We probably need to investigate further.
Regards,
Dave.