From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rkerur@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com
 [209.85.214.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9E8C572
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:44:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id jq7so114803901obb.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:44:58 -0800 (PST)
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=uWi+r7/d+/sHcSXV5IpIrlwGrcDWvGs6bFNzdUeVrhQ=;
 b=b115t8fEfpVXYOC1Wk7CqVZp5zGZr1vA7+tVxz3iiScLZ2jZ/CtidbDdwsQzgw3BgH
 Z0Xj8H/cO0Qe9qDj5JZ3GNuEPzDEq4rZ6MiDcdlm1EeM0RGG7hMD96TlVOhpmd5aN4a7
 el9oDN4J/E9XYTfiO/5+Htz2Mchhs6nzMHlVhE70BSZcy8zJnIluPAgngZBhmXHCSKRy
 vfLdyjKjJOpxke4mM88wFa6Q2SLKp31zqj1eCY5pg/AWau4DFWtp3Cf5qIyo8LiK4Xmw
 wazSFTy1w/TxMS1tVtwOq5s3k7Gl384gtZjLWjS/KbMLHfRgmwdj7PL0Kt7qBc2VVnlr
 xbOg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
 :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=uWi+r7/d+/sHcSXV5IpIrlwGrcDWvGs6bFNzdUeVrhQ=;
 b=Hyvcb4nG+dYI5drEVnQ6X4iPLZmYW6h0QY9c17qijZXawQP51HCoNDcUGPanpGKcdC
 t1ohWeSnsJuPwEDbWUE4eBoyZKq+k4BxpGlOTOb3+2Fk2AM2wiEtqTkv37aC0xckddfj
 6yPzf/sZUbQNA4jYIYKaugG6uNNyxdALSHlAb3JITU4IqGlsxWGAfbnNDt22pEbABvjU
 b04NGD/+ndl/tUhrqb1cdzN7OhmJG4GPfrLt3J3eZ7+si572aflG0qZ8OIvRt/j6TMy2
 IyBBlaEcM/cq0/ZcmDyWdG5RlUGSfrduG09wyGMPHuhPw1srtdCra+0CcNldOLNzax86
 3oqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORjn5RBPwEZQsSC2d9ipAf0QBK7gZyuVawX2yAQ7+Fez+7JPeZvUuGJvz7Fh3/jZZqtw6lP2bqBXGx7wg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.116.169 with SMTP id jx9mr12518167oeb.30.1455903897464;
 Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:44:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.177.195 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:44:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1453954715-31723-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com>
References: <1429562009-11817-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com>
 <1453954715-31723-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:44:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFb4SLBY+_X+zJiLT=p9YoydXTccUw+URxBsjcYr0wSUo1hzPA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com>
To: Zhihong Wang <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev,v2] 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: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:44:58 -0000

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Zhihong Wang <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
wrote:

> > Remove unnecessary type casting in functions.
> >
> > Tested on Ubuntu (14.04 x86_64) with "make test".
> > "make test" results match the results with baseline.
> > "Memcpy perf" results match the results with baseline.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com>
> > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> >
> > ---
> > .../common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h           | 340
> +++++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 175 insertions(+), 165 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h
> > index 6a57426..839d4ec 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_memcpy.h
>
> [...]
>
> >  /**
> > @@ -150,13 +150,16 @@ rte_mov64blocks(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src,
> size_t n)
> >       __m256i ymm0, ymm1;
> >
> >       while (n >= 64) {
> > -             ymm0 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t
> *)src + 0 * 32));
> > +
> > +             ymm0 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)(src + 0 * 32));
> > +             ymm1 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)(src + 1 * 32));
> > +
> > +             _mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)(dst + 0 * 32), ymm0);
> > +             _mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)(dst + 1 * 32), ymm1);
> > +
>
> Any particular reason to change the order of the statements here? :)
> Overall this patch looks good.
>

Sorry for the late response. Let me double check and get back to you, it's
been a while since I did the changes.


> >               n -= 64;
> > -             ymm1 = _mm256_loadu_si256((const __m256i *)((const uint8_t
> *)src + 1 * 32));
> > -             src = (const uint8_t *)src + 64;
> > -             _mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 0 * 32),
> ymm0);
> > -             _mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i *)((uint8_t *)dst + 1 * 32),
> ymm1);
> > -             dst = (uint8_t *)dst + 64;
> > +             src = src + 64;
> > +             dst = dst + 64;
> >       }
> >  }
> >
>
>