From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f169.google.com (mail-qt0-f169.google.com [209.85.216.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8652BB8 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 13:54:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt0-f169.google.com with SMTP id t26so48129771qtg.0 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 04:54:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sZOu0cimCk5wGcM93GwILs8rB5k1PgIAQcm1jU4zJEU=; b=fEELTh2CTGO9K2ckn5WTrY1nd6sHctRKwQVQce2perL6w3IjcqMlDziv/INNZpRcdI KziKyd0a81CUZiIvP7DdgHMvZGjcVkaGJ4UmkSr2yG7Po5PCgge9jpdbVdXig4eTAzoB QafTaCoJTeDLjABky4YDfdw4axSYMtf+OHIp78380ku0Yzuv/Y+HXbxJpvZJan8YlTpg l3MtqFTw1jKQe0HymhaSGZ93QG42krG4+quxGv6vqrvTd5aWe3zN7/5JjKWRTUNC+o8x AI5bjLzpZw4OCAahlCD7eXc/M5am0bxYwMl7ImVHO7GPpKOnWW4bJT6dPDSflTCSBpZp JcBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sZOu0cimCk5wGcM93GwILs8rB5k1PgIAQcm1jU4zJEU=; b=NYsLpcGP/k4bsMM9/gi1wsXxk3xu4Lyr/nrAkNW+rAZaxgqoa2IIHdaEPcGJ8ZLbbR jyvS9rIFEgpfRLo71lU03avJbb1uBoozb/ois0UdG1fZCAEQIl/7Uo391Klm1BU2HTYa yzhYKTvXGRDsS4sOgs8CVFROB4H99ybDxuoIKK8ml3luiZ0ybZ/3N8Wz6gZuxdpwMuOq GndlAJs5NnYU57YvE8Pg0xYPl8iNLODkuaLvFpoxF0cme27ZlRuJlJ8MyzJeLqqpy+PC 3f89nRgArG8Ff2CuRSP+/DRlJeuURbVSuz65/Jb7y5ZcoDcfi30UvqmaMoM1Z8nzNHWv Ejaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDDtTZDx9oCz9FhiAwc2iEXNkO2ksjgVYSnJ3QMefGh/rbCtryj EnZ4GXOCBvotEJ7O5FjqPQE0C79KQQ== X-Received: by 10.200.39.164 with SMTP id w33mr16327048qtw.93.1496058856498; Mon, 29 May 2017 04:54:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.36.21 with HTTP; Mon, 29 May 2017 04:54:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170529093008.GB32120@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20170529093008.GB32120@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Vladimir Medvedkin Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 14:54:16 +0300 Message-ID: To: Bruce Richardson Cc: cs5120282@cse.iitd.ac.in, "dev@dpdk.org" , cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 11:54:17 -0000 Hi all, Currently I'm working on compressed trie implementation for LPM4 lib. I think it could be adapted for LPM6. 2017-05-29 12:30 GMT+03:00 Bruce Richardson : > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 12:34:57AM +0530, Atul Shree wrote: > > 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. > > > > Although I'm maintainer for LPM library, I'm not the original author of > the LPM6 code. However, I'll give my thoughts here. Adding Cristian D. on > CC as he was involved in the original implementation, IIRC. > > > Here are my questions: > > Q1: Why DPDK is not doing the compression? > > It's probably not a deliberate omission, more likely that nobody has > done it. > > > 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? > > > > If there is improvement in the normal case, with the worst-case perf > being no worse, it sounds like it may be worth doing. Feel free to > submit patches for evaluation on the list. > > Regards, > /Bruce > > -- Regards, Vladimir