From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0414411C5 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:42:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id l126so59939851wml.1 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:42:44 -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=LrPuEI0Dk4U8c2FFtFZqeAYJPUlnXJZ4rimvz0G7Tew=; b=kXbjlSbM9kC7brBBWQprBvsoQ08T4XZiaCcDOg5ybpAVjtjATiopaQN88BUX6ubt6L G1Xmrjyuhfu7zNwUmlEIfx2i2B+EApBEvhe+zfn/GFZpP785m8AMvMfSpYa4gtYC6MNJ 0GsyOn61pjFEP29qdzNVBiZPhVX74v/Gd/tTQM5ZffIwCDvxnBXG6+Z4Z7Iis7/6BCK5 FPahMJzobL3GMOx0ChXcz6fBK+P9Vyozpz4MXfHmYEyhgDbHLVcaGDjl0M6ozlIQ4W+T IZpuEtftoekjRwwSaxEimbalPj8UsguVfLfJJaB//aFQJ0GVLMjP1r/IB5fzDAWXQFpr efYw== 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=LrPuEI0Dk4U8c2FFtFZqeAYJPUlnXJZ4rimvz0G7Tew=; b=k+ph3pfUu/MZOjSr9X2f5i8inqimI+PqmTxP+lMYiVYXPAK4/6TEG6+qH3X+t4HGDH HUdHs87fAdfQZodn1FwewvvbRSha0od8lPZYhsxgSeAyTglmgGcbP/F9E+EgxZW9aRlb JIewQEpm6SIrfc6e6f/OXCiEp/DQHXRtGalCXIFYrdRq2pzKi0KnKfACm2R27oLOHAY8 U0VHsY9MMiKznZurhOlWILinA4DduA1sT2D0pZMKWr1JpJi7OyxDtva/2/LlDd/G792s H9+XX7fX3SfRyfu0aKHBTokLEGGq8+3pgn7MK456AdzY+FObFNoXdopJLs+YPx1sbTLl yLrg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk4xO8gKB4MfwvdXXRK3IT5jcAbfoG8crK7Ci4Y8srJDF/Kjl0zysI+CYlfOeVbggbGJ7SO0OJhOZhWUoHt5P0pnpXIqw== X-Received: by 10.194.179.162 with SMTP id dh2mr3208182wjc.17.1450435364752; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id wl10sm4450339wjb.27.2015.12.18.02.42.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:42:44 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:41:29 +0100 Message-ID: <3336335.A6HdtgA8Ga@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1450098032-21198-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> <20151217152435.3c733ac1@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:42:45 -0000 2015-12-18 09:52, Xie, Huawei: > On 12/18/2015 7:25 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:32:38 +0530 > > Santosh Shukla wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Santosh Shukla wrote: > >>> virtio_recv_pkts_vec and other virtio vector friend apis are written for sse/avx > >>> instructions. For arm64 in particular, virtio vector implementation does not > >>> exist(todo). > >>> > >>> So virtio pmd driver wont build for targets like i686, arm64. By making > >>> RTE_VIRTIO_INC_VECTOR=n, Driver can build for non-sse/avx targets and will work > >>> in non-vectored virtio mode. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla > >>> --- > >> Ping? > >> > >> any review / comment on this patch much appreciated. Thanks > > The patches I posted (and were ignored by Intel) to support indirect > > and any layout should have much bigger performance gain than all this > > 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. There was an error and Stephen never replied nor pinged about it: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026984.html It happens. Reminder: it is the responsibility of the author to get patches reviewed and accepted. Please let's avoid useless blaming.