From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EBE7A058B; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:09:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9AAA2C6D; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:09:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-il1-f181.google.com (mail-il1-f181.google.com [209.85.166.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BAB2BAE for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:09:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-il1-f181.google.com with SMTP id j9so3355869ilr.7 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:09:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ldOmnzINM3KkfmcxMN+4CkDLYtkXc6lETzn5r0cEWfA=; b=HVTrAnss0pvrer4KIydRNevyG7aHzArX9N5GhQhOjuzCLhN4pOY/t/f0mNrvvCnKkZ Z9zk8WURUWw5ts+Wf8NeaDPkJCAxAnN35BPiw1x4P7+H323T/dhT1XBaMbz1g0h3Fxpo oX/1QyBkw0n1g8R9km1HNep81+MquSsfv4A29T9GUaxss+J/bqROF/d2UpXGddGjRvx0 xaq5nEONRgK7gNns+L64B11Xeq5QjR1kSUWN7MqMshgyEagsnrB9oaKk+ICrG+n9RqHT EedWmNl7AGpsY9lLGKXHz1z/faWmoZN1TPzz+V3BjpzMxunF6+7UILON4WNQUOAoX2Jy +x0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ldOmnzINM3KkfmcxMN+4CkDLYtkXc6lETzn5r0cEWfA=; b=sIGQ9nAFVjDx9WS90DQeKHdqIKtumI0Grx8ryMRNGB090z9vrZmwe8PCEXFIxgX5Qv RjcteUOOPEyOO+D2Hf4U+mAH4XJyKH5ASblHRDZWOfLTwKP/ye/qYBv9hzTD/lVVdbzo h3ejC5e8HByyLXumQaxVtDKDBDsCZPqPe7CElqLbo5i/u7D6li+SBUyLXbQrNt/YgaLB iIwtCFcGkdtMx/31GvJiMHOCMuiDDoZAOo1CJz6cctjLH4+pvJLig69rVaxO3iHKbhXV sFAK1wHDznjgld6ZI6Lh4gCIpLj2raumFl/brMO8bL9wGKSDhP57hi7D4VVfZTxd6nh3 bHAA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3MkHWma6L+kNAwBYYqfWyeoQej61OJAuuAd+A2C/NUr9Pkr9b5 Hb1CPuy1SvmlZ8jbXK5aFRqxBzoz3h5yNmg3hkw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vstldb33U2qvcq0XZkyNdMI1D6VzqZ2VL9SBsGQfx46qgzkKg96QxkiNcMMfrBW/getDoBYvSHc1DqEBWJI9G8= X-Received: by 2002:a92:cbc6:: with SMTP id s6mr5472374ilq.271.1585170571926; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:09:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200320164138.8510-1-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20200320164138.8510-1-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 02:39:15 +0530 Message-ID: <CALBAE1OuOwpQhSX9rKSKUy6BdypcCBWnYWuxR8ioAo4YXT-LFw@mail.gmail.com> To: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>, Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>, David Christensen <drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ring: make ring implementation non-inlined X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:11 PM Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote: > > As was discussed here: > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-February/158586.html > this RFC aimed to hide ring internals into .c and make all > ring functions non-inlined. In theory that might help to > maintain ABI stability in future. > This is just a POC to measure the impact of proposed idea, > proper implementation would definetly need some extra effort. > On IA box (SKX) ring_perf_autotest shows ~20-30 cycles extra for > enqueue+dequeue pair. On some more realistic code, I suspect > the impact it might be a bit higher. > For MP/MC bulk transfers degradation seems quite small, > though for SP/SC and/or small transfers it is more then noticable > (see exact numbers below). > From my perspective we'd probably keep it inlined for now > to avoid any non-anticipated perfomance degradations. > Though intersted to see perf results and opinions from > other interested parties. +1 My reasoning is a bit different, DPDK is using in embedded boxes too where performance has more weight than ABI stuff. I think we need to focus first on slow path APIs ABI stuff. I spend a few cycles to apply this patch + http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-February/158586.html on top of the tree, there are a lot of conflicts. If I get a mergeable patch then I will test it on an arm64 box. > > Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8160 CPU @ 2.10GHz > ring_perf_autotest (without patch/with patch)