From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6137FA046B for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:38:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B9C325F; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:38:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3AA2D13 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:38:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F85F2B; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 02:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from net-arm-c2400-02.shanghai.arm.com (net-arm-c2400-02.shanghai.arm.com [10.169.40.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9778D3F718; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 02:38:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Ruifeng Wang To: bruce.richardson@intel.com, vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org, honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, gavin.hu@arm.com, nd@arm.com, Ruifeng Wang Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:37:49 +0800 Message-Id: <20190627093751.7746-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary functions X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop on some x86 platforms with the memory ordering patches applied. By force no-inline functions, the performance was better than before on x86 and no impact to arm64 platforms. Suggested-by: Medvedkin Vladimir Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu --- v3: use __rte_noinline to force no inline v2: initail version to remove 'inline' keyword lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c index 6b7b28a2e..eb835f052 100644 --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c @@ -709,7 +709,7 @@ tbl8_free_v1604(struct rte_lpm_tbl_entry *tbl8, uint32_t tbl8_group_start) tbl8[tbl8_group_start].valid_group = INVALID; } -static inline int32_t +static __rte_noinline int32_t add_depth_small_v20(struct rte_lpm_v20 *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint8_t depth, uint8_t next_hop) { @@ -777,7 +777,7 @@ add_depth_small_v20(struct rte_lpm_v20 *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint8_t depth, return 0; } -static inline int32_t +static __rte_noinline int32_t add_depth_small_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint8_t depth, uint32_t next_hop) { @@ -846,7 +846,7 @@ add_depth_small_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint8_t depth, return 0; } -static inline int32_t +static __rte_noinline int32_t add_depth_big_v20(struct rte_lpm_v20 *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, uint8_t depth, uint8_t next_hop) { @@ -971,7 +971,7 @@ add_depth_big_v20(struct rte_lpm_v20 *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, uint8_t depth, return 0; } -static inline int32_t +static __rte_noinline int32_t add_depth_big_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, uint8_t depth, uint32_t next_hop) { -- 2.17.1