From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE048041 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 23:13:29 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r20so74629wiv.2 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:13:29 -0800 (PST) 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=tK9/hwwY0rYWjhL4ZlI6h1JSGMgKgN7NSP2gzFW9KXs=; b=eKWOe5bBwNclWZqTHfxv2mE49FI088VSTzlD1MR63rCzu+hZBMm7BX6NgnQ4f/Omnx 7syy89GOrkKaw7R28KYgzXlEUA+jsmF3Kg8FhvE7XaZPkNxjJvvfmaFhG1YM7nP9c4XJ KkdGGZU3s1OcjsSH+Pq4K0Z7InHHkeqNsUGUt2sHZJGKW/iZeNIFfx+MELsEVmV6xQLk ejz3kCBdk10zKxgxP4vc2xHhujXVlJ3/B7cFx6SUfXDvoSWEVz8gTGxi+yrG0ZqhZoiO seEnQgdtBSBD1IUnQSsHrndXHLjsmBVnw2ZtVwA0c04l+hThWkf0Ywz9uED5FGTunXIR u8Bw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlasOifOcaAXUusfNMOYIBtppQkEjsWzHEvXOknuZbG+ZjKshjaYL2YakKA/OnAMDbuOF9k X-Received: by 10.194.91.205 with SMTP id cg13mr22876284wjb.21.1417817609005; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:13:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j1sm46482471wjw.25.2014.12.05.14.13.27 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:13:28 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 23:13:02 +0100 Message-ID: <5741915.Ac0y19fb1f@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.17.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <5481F359.40007@6wind.com> References: <1417792834-20590-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BD098@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> <5481F359.40007@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length 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, 05 Dec 2014 22:13:29 -0000 2014-12-05 19:03, Jean-Mickael Guerin: > On 05/12/2014 18:07, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > From: Jean-Mickael Guerin [mailto:jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com] > >> On 05/12/2014 16:20, Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > >>> That's an alternative way to fix the problem described in the patch: > >>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009394.html. > >>> The main difference is: > >>> - move buf_len fields out of rearm_data marker. > >>> - make ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec() not touch buf_len field at all > >>> (as all other RX functions behave). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev > >> > >> The patch introduces writes on unaligned data, but we can assume no > >> performance penalty on intel hw, correct? > > > > Yes to both: > > it introduces 64bit unaligned store. > > I run performance test on IVB board, didn't see any degradation. > > Konstantin > > OK fine by me: > > Acked-by: Jean-Mickael Guerin Applied, even if the patch is RFC, it will be validated as part of -rc3. Thanks -- Thomas