From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3594B5A86 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:12:37 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id l126so74919986wml.0 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:12:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=ykRRXk9uXa0gyF6Fqi2kG8qypOt6p4NU7XRUR7SNf48=; b=beWQkPMHstudUIPIZV60oZoQsehmXVE1TqyhwF1wKXGl1oVMkufdn0uSi/SkMQsDGy Teifjj0mWcfrLLW/75k0na/S4Js13Hdf3aYtKnQgjhxORs8gGJjkar8NXmOlmP2BW4X7 XkmuXX9Kuj3SzcA+AmwRWdYtUoDZLMgxQZ355nZf8uM7lW+IhId/0WTGouveBkGxptlv fgYROlCx/8FdccKUURkzre35+dqUq9F7f7/ilx6yleBaEfpYViUOY7uGfJsrhB/4QWni ALAuTd0ASGY/m7AdamTnHjNL+wvI3eJkMB3wvnhFZEqu5g7TxcgAd29xs6IvdSmhQNVG bVdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=ykRRXk9uXa0gyF6Fqi2kG8qypOt6p4NU7XRUR7SNf48=; b=HnsABNlpQEqX/3NxE7CRhilG2g32t5AXDGlC8HI8YXq0p/vsoV0FdhW1QeSVmwaegc 0NvFJSASfrMns3ySDdRThiXgWDvjJ56iSdRBGtC4JFRrvcd+wpDjYP6avL/AzqJlWdM8 aF5LLm4Gz09iGCJsVW9L3cZFmtzFy+AsTb0zzvgMR7lzBIaeBKXC06nXHTkWPtTY9J5y tt+6KyNt9s9A9SAl2G0C/hEN0SrmwilJNsHXyLMqCD7XhBobtawWIlHo6/6cp6m7e7F6 QRDZcjPiwixSDy8gtOUeEL5gf7VfAc8q+/D/HSL6LlFLIydrWJ0c93qHrGsc3eEZTBJr WdXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlxwqv2H1PP/bgd9Ta3+3PRC9jYkOx6QhO0QlP3uNF26t7gIVzh7JJmqNCbo+lHDG4W1euSuulgwDxAShMTqrhXEB5dyA== X-Received: by 10.28.130.7 with SMTP id e7mr4648175wmd.68.1450462356998; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:12:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q6sm7680123wmd.8.2015.12.18.10.12.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:12:36 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:11:21 +0100 Message-ID: <2938160.ovecZPVEJY@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20151218093342.78fc5f72@xeon-e3> References: <1450098032-21198-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C54930D@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20151218093342.78fc5f72@xeon-e3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [ [PATCH v2] 01/13] virtio: Introduce config RTE_VIRTIO_INC_VECTOR 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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:12:37 -0000 2015-12-18 09:33, Stephen Hemminger: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:52:29 +0000 > "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com> wrote: > > > low level SSE bit twiddling. > > Hi Stephen: > > We only did SSE twiddling to RX, which almost doubles the performance > > comparing to normal path in virtio/vhost performance test case. Indirect > > and any layout feature enabling are mostly for TX. We also did some > > optimization for single segment and non-offload case in TX, without > > using SSE, which also gives ~60% performance improvement, in Qian's > > result. My optimization is mostly for single segment and non-offload > > case, which i calls simple rx/tx. > > I plan to add virtio/vhost performance benchmark so that we could easily > > measure the performance difference for each patch. > > > > Indirect and any layout features are useful for multiple segment > > transmitted packet mbufs. I had acked your patch at the first time, and > > thought it is applied. I don't understand why you say it is ignored by > > Intel. > > Sorry, did not mean to blame Intel, ... more that why didn't it get in 2.2? I've already answered to this question: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-December/030540.html There was a compilation error and you have not followed up.