From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ravi Kerur <rkerur-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clean up rte_memcpy.h file
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:00:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFb4SLCa06Z1++fx4SHNX67C9Vkj-KtvhETK=O+e9FNqLPCnQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1429047011-11545-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com>
 <1429047113-11688-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com>
 <552E05FB.30504@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" <dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
To: Pawel Wodkowski <pawelx.wodkowski-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <552E05FB.30504-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@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 Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Pawel Wodkowski <
pawelx.wodkowski-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
I ran "make test" which runs "memcpy perf"  results  were given in
"cover-letter". I am pasting it here again.

/**********************With changes*************************************/
Start memcpy_perf:             Success                       [00m 00s]
Memcpy performance autotest:   Success               [09m 36s] [17m 45s]
/**********************Without changes**********************************/
Start memcpy_perf:             Success                       [00m 00s]
Memcpy performance autotest:   Success               [09m 35s] [13m 57s]


-- 
> Pawel
>