From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ankitbhrdwj27@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com (mail-yw0-f172.google.com
 [209.85.161.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289D2916D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:32:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-yw0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l74so99322350ywe.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 23:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=+dZ1L/mc+pzhgzJ/hY0IrdwQDW5jDjG/IaBk7AULEYc=;
 b=Io0WK+GBLHnzeSh/M1NZtVA0542pbd7wb68vz+htj/O995Sc8JKCsLoxWG0+MySzO3
 dDSN1H+5ATOtfURPceNnf39QchFeULKGHsg9Fvl8NwGGl/5qp/LGFosbH6HsSfta4Mqu
 TvEFmz9qiIESxuKoKhH2ZGNly+cDnNM7YLh7y1jCbYMG3OM/pJ4Q5R9euHCH4r8hwvvY
 ntkyW4w0Xaf9iSfDplvslrLmlhdnh9nsJAxxlhQNbt6waHfTjsVTvFtC02OsVoowP3uW
 +scrfTrU9/XfrpTKxWXCleSYgvkWAnJihkSRMJDlPTAuSR6udPOIOmBT8c1jr6Zh4nmg
 IUtg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=+dZ1L/mc+pzhgzJ/hY0IrdwQDW5jDjG/IaBk7AULEYc=;
 b=RvDJ7vvikXs2jrWTLeZ/O5ZsmgoP/LPzDwUAg4fvCwCyzS0vpNZorTXD2X63zcEUs3
 iG5NUFep9eNnYOTYCQm55O/nbUrp6mHiS8mD9NLk9++VWjnZZBTw9YgFAJpNGL3ypxsY
 npKfWkg80zGQfmxawRM/fcovXtnWmpp2NYE/Evps7V4x6OX3MPqyOIlSEFF+Ues7ANUn
 ZOSaZVkr0DhrOGZW4PBTGslwj03QHM3Jhfio21XpgcL1en2XzZ8uqsktsiNsId2HvHx9
 R+0GwROsNGVHoA3DGL+yaTL/euxgZGn7AHsOjzoxHlzShDYuqCtzha1Ij8iBEdTIlS4V
 iJlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBgGqc9mE13JfSHP9e6DZrYpUIk6NpYlCX3HEJwaxf1hK0585B5
 NYuDY5fE9xLGx09xbeaO9DSoK1NHHw==
X-Received: by 10.129.98.212 with SMTP id w203mr29406626ywb.79.1495693952412; 
 Wed, 24 May 2017 23:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.220.70 with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2017 23:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: ankit bhardwaj <ankitbhrdwj27@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 12:02:32 +0530
Message-ID: <CAC4R1nnXGgG2HGA8xcnm7WTpTMva4Y87614HiBRbZNC6_Rq6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Cc: notul.atul@hotmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why DPDK is not using compressed TRIE for LPM6 ?
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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: Thu, 25 May 2017 06:32:33 -0000

Hello All,

I was doing some experiments related to LPM6 look up and I have added 20K
entries in the table. By looking at the rte_lpm6_lookup() code I found an
opportunity to compress the TRIE and there is a significant improvement
after compression.

Here are my questions:
Q1: Why DPDK is not doing the compression?
Q2. In the worst case the table will behave like an uncompressed TRIE and
in other cases, there is a scope of improvement. Is it worth doing?

 --
Ankit Bhardwaj