From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cs5120282@iitd.ac.in>
Received: from smtpnew.iitd.ac.in (smtp3.iitd.ac.in [103.27.11.44])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E566290F2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 May 2017 21:05:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtpnew.iitd.ac.in (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtpnew.iitd.ac.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDD040127
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 27 May 2017 00:35:01 +0530 (IST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtpnew.iitd.ac.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F6540162
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 27 May 2017 00:35:01 +0530 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cse.iitd.ac.in;
 h=user-agent:message-id:reply-to:subject:subject:from:from:date
 :date:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type
 :mime-version:received:received:received; s=iitd; t=1495825497;
 x=1497639898; bh=pP1eZbUkehmLQkVtplvNah2QTUWI7uaVVQa+mrbPACQ=; b=
 dso6RXXV++k3sdAlf1rqJOw1bdGjKWnTRK3llR8VdJ5r0iJU7gM/QFRp0BXyyDwN
 H0tiJ8TjQulDqP/+4plAcA9WJd7XOliJD4SPmbfN8hYYuTy96yZJy2VOYFfhrrQn
 CQoLuHa1sVRJYRVjRTMNlDh6Rt9U5QfluiqA8YUHvwc=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at smtp2.iitd.ernet.in
Received: from smtpnew.iitd.ac.in ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtpnew.iitd.ac.in [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
 with ESMTP id WmELMJXNMKzF for <dev@dpdk.org>;
 Sat, 27 May 2017 00:34:57 +0530 (IST)
Received: from webmail.iitd.ernet.in (webmail.iitd.ac.in [10.7.172.189])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cs5120282)
 by smtpnew.iitd.ac.in (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E378040127
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 27 May 2017 00:34:57 +0530 (IST)
Received: from [10.237.23.99] by webmail.iitd.ernet.in
 with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Sat, 27 May 2017 00:34:57 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 00:34:57 +0530
From: Atul Shree <Atul.Shree.cs512@cse.iitd.ac.in>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Mail-Reply-To: cs5120282@cse.iitd.ac.in
Message-ID: <bc76760208b5b2c851e23b116d0a1384@cse.iitd.ac.in>
X-Sender: Atul.Shree.cs512@cse.iitd.ac.in
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.2
X-BSPAM: CLEAN
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
Reply-To: cs5120282@cse.iitd.ac.in
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: Fri, 26 May 2017 19:05:03 -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?

Thank you!

Atul Shree