From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas.monjalon@6wind.com,
bruce.richardson@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mempool: replace c memcpy code semantics with optimized rte_memcpy
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 18:04:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <576D5A15.9030705@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5763D397.8060900@6wind.com>
On 06/17/2016 12:40 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Jerin,
>
> On 06/03/2016 09:02 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:16:16PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>> Hi Olivier,
>>
>>> This is probably more a measure of the pure CPU cost of the mempool
>>> function, without considering the memory cache aspect. So, of course,
>>> a real use-case test should be done to confirm or not that it increases
>>> the performance. I'll manage to do a test and let you know the result.
>>
>> OK
>>
>> IMO, put rte_memcpy makes sense(this patch) as their no behavior change.
>> However, if get rte_memcpy with behavioral changes makes sense some platform
>> then we can enable it on conditional basics(I am OK with that)
>>
>>>
>>> By the way, not all drivers are allocating or freeing the mbufs by
>>> bulk, so this modification would only affect these ones. What driver
>>> are you using for your test?
>>
>> I have tested with ThunderX nicvf pmd(uses the bulk mode).
>> Recently sent out driver in ml for review
>
> Just to let you know I do not forget this. I still need to
> find some time to do a performance test.
Quoting from the other thread [1] too to save this in patchwork:
[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-June/042701.html
> On 06/24/2016 05:56 PM, Hunt, David wrote:
>> Hi Jerin,
>>
>> I just ran a couple of tests on this patch on the latest master head on
>> a couple of machines. An older quad socket E5-4650 and a quad socket
>> E5-2699 v3
>>
>> E5-4650:
>> I'm seeing a gain of 2% for un-cached tests and a gain of 9% on the
>> cached tests.
>>
>> E5-2699 v3:
>> I'm seeing a loss of 0.1% for un-cached tests and a gain of 11% on the
>> cached tests.
>>
>> This is purely the autotest comparison, I don't have traffic generator
>> results. But based on the above, I don't think there are any performance
>> issues with the patch.
>>
>
> Thanks for doing the test on your side. I think it's probably enough
> to integrate Jerin's patch .
>
> About using a rte_memcpy() in the mempool_get(), I don't think I'll have
> the time to do a more exhaustive test before the 16.07, so I'll come
> back with it later.
>
> I'm sending an ack on the v2 thread.
Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-24 16:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-24 14:50 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: " Jerin Jacob
2016-05-24 14:59 ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-24 15:17 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-05-27 10:24 ` Hunt, David
2016-05-27 11:42 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-05-27 15:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-05-30 8:44 ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-27 13:45 ` Hunt, David
2016-06-24 15:56 ` Hunt, David
2016-06-24 16:02 ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-26 8:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mempool: " Jerin Jacob
2016-05-30 8:45 ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-31 12:58 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-05-31 21:05 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-06-01 7:00 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-06-02 7:36 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-06-02 9:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-06-02 21:16 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-06-03 7:02 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-06-17 10:40 ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-24 16:04 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2016-06-30 9:41 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-06-30 11:38 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-06-30 12:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Jerin Jacob
2016-06-30 17:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-07-05 8:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-07-05 11:32 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-07-05 13:13 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-07-05 13:42 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-07-05 14:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-07-06 16:21 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-07-07 13:51 ` Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=576D5A15.9030705@6wind.com \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).