From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
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 <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:41:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 197so5876352wmk.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; 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 <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Jianbo Liu <jianbo.liu@linaro.org>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com>,
 Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
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: <CAP4Qi3_DxAnvs0jX1P=G_PiLnRRbP5Wty-eU-OPE_81RGCAuTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1471319402-112998-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com>
 <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE09414E7B6204@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <CAP4Qi3_DxAnvs0jX1P=G_PiLnRRbP5Wty-eU-OPE_81RGCAuTA@mail.gmail.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 <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>
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 <zhihong.wang@intel.com> 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?