From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2098D96 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:26:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2015 07:26:40 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,234,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="809735307" Received: from dhunt5x-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.208.62]) ([10.237.208.62]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2015 07:26:20 -0800 To: Jerin Jacob References: <1446212959-19832-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <1446212959-19832-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <20151102045728.GB16413@localhost.localdomain> <56375597.8070805@intel.com> <20151102125743.GA9506@localhost.localdomain> From: "Hunt, David" Message-ID: <5637809B.1000806@intel.com> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:26:19 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151102125743.GA9506@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] eal/arm: add 64-bit armv8 version of rte_memcpy.h 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: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 15:26:43 -0000 On 02/11/2015 12:57, Jerin Jacob wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:22:47PM +0000, Hunt, David wrote: >> Jerin, >> I've just benchmarked the libc version against the hand-coded version of >> the memcpy routines, and the libc wins in most cases. This code was just an >> initial attempt at optimising the memccpy's, so I feel that with the current >> benchmark results, it would better just to remove the assembly versions, and >> use the libc version for the initial release on ARMv8. >> Then, in the future, the ARMv8 experts are free to submit an optimised >> version as a patch in the future. Does that sound reasonable to you? > > Make sense. Based on my understanding, other blocks are also not optimized > for arm64. > So better to revert back to CONFIG_RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS and > libc for initial version. > > BTW: I just tested ./arm64-armv8a-linuxapp-gcc/app/test and > "byteorder_autotest" is broken. I think existing arm64 code is not optimized > beyond CONFIG_RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS. So better to use verified > CONFIG_RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS scheme. Agreed. > if you guys are OK with arm and arm64 as two different platform then > I can summit the complete working patch for arm64.(as in my current source > code "arm64" is a different platform(lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm64/) Sure. That would be great. We initially started with two ARMv7 patch-sets, and Jan merged into one. Something similar could happen for the ARMv8 patch set. We just want to end up with the best implementation possible. :) Dave.