From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rkerur@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com (mail-pd0-f171.google.com
 [209.85.192.171]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D01D377C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 23:04:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by pdbnk13 with SMTP id nk13so65697405pdb.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=9csnZFNVd4Eu2FTCWZ05pA0qdEAhnqxmNEIqWatA/GI=;
 b=IePRYrpyzpLBzlhVUquB6OWGmNWvc7f5cfNtPoZdmvyyAl7nIRL4CCf3HpXrDn1eXe
 31LxCea7EFQL4q04yEMJ94hnvnaEmnpl4IboAVFTNt7jVe5dlOMyuYK3vBxB50f7mC1s
 7mOG1YF6Hr9eu57xWJPXNifusYKR6f5PqyHAOo70yHjhZEL7LMO16p5VpBpZpeaX+YJ2
 Iuc9gURAEE2Q+EpObAQ9PQ8ZZl9nMz6Bp1XfoY6SpZfAPirCbVkxNaka0iR5lso1sO5/
 HODdzKRU+otMMhp1D3IFv5Exqr9TOB5+JmjwJ+JwxsTXPyHUA9x1s9HRIiisreNeUYK6
 v3EQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.182.201 with SMTP id eg9mr50821336pac.68.1429131898614;
 Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.123.2 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150414195348.7fe30c3f@urahara>
References: <1429047011-11545-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com>
 <1429047113-11688-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com>
 <20150414195348.7fe30c3f@urahara>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:04:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFb4SLBO0=mxDDTnR=vk3Vp+1J+h8QcOJ_PbVdH58CYWDT6aKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Clean up rte_memcpy.h file
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: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:04:59 -0000

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:31:53 -0700
> Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +
> > +     for (i = 0; i < 2; i++)
> > +             rte_mov32(dst + i * 32, src + i * 32);
> >  }
> Unless you force compiler to unroll the loop, it will be slower.
>

I had done following things

1. Use sample code from Intel to make sure CPU supports those instructions.
2. Check generated code with and without loop using (gcc -O3 -m64 -S), gcc
version is 4.8.2
No difference in code generated between "loop" and "no-loop". At least I
was expecting difference in the code.

3. Run "make test" and compare "memcpy perf" results.