From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495241B3DD for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:44:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1FD20B4D; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 06:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Nov 2017 06:44:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=061BHHpkCYmCaJRrld0DKOZQ7k mFMKetBLBohfLHAdk=; b=rpmwlv1+SG5C3NWQSR6GBbDCxMMA5b0aRhqRTbPX0A wklHMJR13ptsNJif6uxPvUnTb+q+9MVjXhczqsryEjymB2sKHHlOpR5VKaB+1t6k tcPPvquNywVShLqZKE76PN2YyNhAy9gISO7y2w72xUV2YDPCLUHrlf4pAlEGzrD4 Q= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=061BHH pkCYmCaJRrld0DKOZQ7kmFMKetBLBohfLHAdk=; b=pAEwkSjfTQjjsUqilu6qR/ xVI4zqHJOVDSftNEXOVobvwmvh+MtBXwbIb8b04WDLvcDy2GfjVZkN3eouOouuLP wiU/7zZQrGOwgRGQ/vq6NGVOKoD/SDEerQhPSZEXElVR9oOBZuatFoNPjtH4bV4P AAoFenE3FGaPjHmO0HIOzMkln05tVUOLZNyRWvq9tLErM8n09z6270q6qSBALzob FemZQsCe5MTpJuUnzhILMKsvPu5OAmhcf98NEU5YeHyEvaONv2KKk5EHyZQ8FORp afino+FZ5f/B5F9NyzHAuQaFyD8lj+W1oSCpDwY6I/tiYzo26lW8B0jU5VJPv/fQ == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2E90F24990; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 06:44:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Wang, Zhihong" , "Li, Xiaoyun" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Richardson, Bruce" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Zhang, Helin" , "ophirmu@mellanox.com" Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 11:44:34 +0100 Message-ID: <2027509.fDzOy6Rher@xps> In-Reply-To: <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE0941513593EB@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1507206794-79941-1-git-send-email-xiaoyun.li@intel.com> <6811801.9Gdy4CqsrT@xps> <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE0941513593EB@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/3] eal/x86: run-time dispatch over memcpy 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 10:44:36 -0000 02/11/2017 11:22, Wang, Zhihong: > > I don't know what is creating this drop exactly. > > When doing different tests on different environments, we do not see this > > drop. > > If nobody else can see such issue, I guess we can ignore it. > > Hi Thomas, Xiaoyun, > > With this patch (commit 84cc318424d49372dd2a5fbf3cf84426bf95acce) I see > more than 20% performance drop in vhost loopback test with testpmd > macswap for 256 bytes packets, which means it impacts actual vSwitching > performance. > > Suggest we fix it or revert it for this release. I think we need more numbers to take a decision. What is the benefit of this patch? In which use-cases? What are the drawbacks? In which use-cases? Please, it is a call to test performance with and without this patch in more environments (CPU, packet size, applications).