From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luke Gorrie Subject: Re: Possible bug in mlx5_tx_burst_mpw? Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:57:47 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20160914143016.GT17252@6wind.com> <20160916071403.GW17252@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 To: "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71565594 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:57:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b187so22722246wme.1 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:57:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160916071403.GW17252@6wind.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Adrien, Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed reply. This indeed sounds reasonable to me. Users will need to take these special-cases into account when predicting performance on their own anticipated workloads, which is a bit tricky, but then that is life when dealing with complex new technology. I am eager to see what new techniques come down the pipeline for efficiently moving packets and descriptors across PCIe. Thanks again for the detailed reply. Cheers! -Luke