From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rolette@infiniteio.com>
Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com (mail-yk0-f174.google.com
 [209.85.160.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F715424
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:29:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-yk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 131so632995ykp.5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:29:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
 :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=k1bHyLXs/vesMoDigwEd3+i5OzwL2TYJ3Guci3Dd1TA=;
 b=FURU/pt+5yIkB71VutqfCgp07LrmTEQE1/6uGr0MJn8bY993hN/boSOpj9dSC+kjXE
 zOPk4MHGI01/WheVdoxark3OJ/vCRAxqb8v0Rh5xYEQOlJncj641b9axyvT3wm3gdcQA
 1Z3PlT1nP+GvfVu2HJpmCwqz00s3NU8I1FiOadTBtPX28TFwKmYtQSwjHJODi8jcxPED
 KD96w3AahsaZ0QMz9cnle6VZJBtGNKk1tfuZgspfFx7gZ0qs0XL2utcQvB1NNf2z/fz4
 i0K2y31sA77y7kzRtw11mCiTIn41/OxPWNcho+VQ8qhQhx4hmHD8ub4QrZXoH7wdpgPN
 FEfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkJafhdZwjYY1CvzU/TIHpXoYwL1f+pPf7TlWQnDiWApm/U1GBO742/FLqihHNOlvF5rx4s
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.105.180 with SMTP id k40mr687728yhg.85.1421933357547;
 Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:29:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.54.73 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:29:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAA2XHbcG4kZzOiMibQhjRxjg_aCJpZ4djgXbQf=FECgZropbCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150119130221.GB21790@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
 <F60F360A2500CD45ACDB1D700268892D0E75EFFE@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20150120151118.GD18449@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
 <20150120161453.GA5316@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <F60F360A2500CD45ACDB1D700268892D0E75F664@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <54BF9D59.7070104@bisdn.de> <20150121130234.GB10756@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <54BFA7D5.7020106@bisdn.de> <20150121132620.GC10756@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <20150121114947.0753ae87@urahara>
 <20150121205404.GB32617@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
 <53D2253B-DE20-486E-ADF0-DA02AAB1EF35@netgate.com>
 <CAA2XHbcG4kZzOiMibQhjRxjg_aCJpZ4djgXbQf=FECgZropbCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 07:29:17 -0600
Message-ID: <CADNuJVrzFzT6WOWM8W13xvv8ad5b2GMO8C12EFYRb1vQZGyTBA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com>
To: Luke Gorrie <luke@snabb.co>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] DPDK memcpy optimization
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: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:29:18 -0000

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Luke Gorrie <luke@snabb.co> wrote:

Here is another thought: when is it time to start thinking of packet copy
> as a cheap unit-time operation?
>

Pretty much never short of changes to memory architecture, IMO. Frankly,
there are never enough cycles for deep packet inspection applications that
need to run at/near line-rate. Don't waste any doing something you can
avoid in the first place.

Microseconds matter. Scaling up to 100GbE, nanoseconds matter.

Jay