From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8BC6A80
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:05:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2015 09:05:30 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,582,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="680578400"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.33])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2015 09:05:28 -0700
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:05:27 +0025
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:05:27 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Kavanagh, Mark B" <mark.b.kavanagh@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20150415160527.GA9836@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <DC5AD7FA266D86499789B1BCAEC715F846DA64E3@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DC5AD7FA266D86499789B1BCAEC715F846DA64E3@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Minimum Supported x86 microarchitecture
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: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:05:51 -0000

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 03:09:39PM +0000, Kavanagh, Mark B wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The recent reimplementation of rte_memcpy in DPDK v2.0.0 seems to have a placed an implicit floor on the microarchitecture/Instruction set supported by DPDK.
> 
> For example, I can't compile head of OVS against DPDK 2.0 with gcc without passing the 'msse3' flag; this points to an implicit minimum  supported CPU of 'core2'. More discussion on same is available here: http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-April/053523.html
> 
> Can anyone confirm or deny this, and is/should it be documented?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Mark

SSE3 is the minimum necessary. However, I believe all x86_64 cpus have at least
SSE3 support, so this should only be a problem with 32-bit builds. Is this the
case for you?

/Bruce