From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C713068F5 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:41:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 197so5876352wmk.1 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:41:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ebMItS99OeeQ2nJDJ0Ms2YCyYaH2tPjLBJxZdPI31rw=; b=KaPnFfavaQUOyBQV9E04tej/ZeEksK+M54BPePmqBfgePysEaDf6XiyghLezTByp63 2/82G2mJV39yfdqcXYhhG76zMmQiumsTDlmxDslhA1fyExDGmNHq8dO2YuS8t30dN7B3 khLQv+XXlvxGU5xHh31UsGQP/uCjWo5cAMHygd+UroA0ehf3gJI2GgYK9jING2eYzt8R 3N8T+Iy2is8kesKZowb9HpK+qRVnR8w1OhTalGiXl/lWskTcEsa04J+N500OoD1aDWZN vIPbDL1WeIlrK+pvRD5jeFnoPaBLwDPLJE8fy3VdeT1DDewxrR2j++HbpBBc72MPkDVh jabg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ebMItS99OeeQ2nJDJ0Ms2YCyYaH2tPjLBJxZdPI31rw=; b=kWfiUa9t+T1Ido5Xk70MmVVV0w1fGhVyMYV4LxIOsX6mvBlUjmCd/W4PVWTGcnO3/o ib4QAjgTLxVLEhlQsYQZoZ1UB2Gbue+KW/FpERoB8rOzWxCcIMv/J17lmnpJYne7Q8/I x5/wNYytzxwJ/j2SVwSuS2+ZukY+NCd7JrIG6r4thggmk9So4Zw0N82mQASPj7EVehE/ 4UhjWOwhtmau4agC1yXN1uTLxXUwLt0nyHziHXn8cSTZFDfi+4btx3PEzvby64hxXCTx +TS8Yx4c+rpX4jhTVYclZChkjrDk30aivomLHAJg/7hvnK9GzY2CpOxnjwH4yXBIh7u6 wCqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwN3UZ+yvoEzLvndHZAwIQB92Ok8lxf3ffxhlibqBftCDU3xTMekYzeaZsT8wsUXbdFG X-Received: by 10.194.9.36 with SMTP id w4mr7022332wja.133.1474638071543; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q10sm3199176wme.6.2016.09.23.06.41.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:41:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jianbo Liu Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Wang, Zhihong" , Yuanhan Liu , Maxime Coquelin Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:41:08 +0200 Message-ID: <1536480.IYe8r5XoNN@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1471319402-112998-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com> <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE09414E7B6204@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/5] vhost: optimize enqueue X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:41:11 -0000 2016-09-23 18:41, Jianbo Liu: > On 23 September 2016 at 10:56, Wang, Zhihong wrote: > ..... > > This is expected because the 2nd patch is just a baseline and all optimization > > patches are organized in the rest of this patch set. > > > > I think you can do bottleneck analysis on ARM to see what's slowing down the > > perf, there might be some micro-arch complications there, mostly likely in > > memcpy. > > > > Do you use glibc's memcpy? I suggest to hand-crafted it on your own. > > > > Could you publish the mrg_rxbuf=on data also? Since it's more widely used > > in terms of spec integrity. > > > I don't think it will be helpful for you, considering the differences > between x86 and arm. > So please move on with this patchset... Jianbo, I don't understand. You said that the 2nd patch is a regression: - volatile uint16_t last_used_idx; + uint16_t last_used_idx; And the overrall series lead to performance regression for packets > 512 B, right? But we don't know wether you have tested the v6 or not. Zhihong talked about some improvements possible in rte_memcpy. ARM64 is using libc memcpy in rte_memcpy. Now you seem to give up. Does it mean you accept having a regression in 16.11 release? Are you working on rte_memcpy?