On 12/18/2015 7:25 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:32:38 +0530 > Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com> >> wrote: >>> virtio_recv_pkts_vec and other virtio vector friend apis are written for >>> sse/avx >>> instructions. For arm64 in particular, virtio vector implementation does not >>> exist(todo). >>> >>> So virtio pmd driver wont build for targets like i686, arm64. By making >>> RTE_VIRTIO_INC_VECTOR=n, Driver can build for non-sse/avx targets and will >>> work >>> in non-vectored virtio mode. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com> >>> --- >> Ping? >> >> any review / comment on this patch much appreciated. Thanks > The patches I posted (and were ignored by Intel) to support indirect > and any layout should have much bigger performance gain than all this > low level SSE bit twiddling. Hi Stephen: We only did SSE twiddling to RX, which almost doubles the performance comparing to normal path in virtio/vhost performance test case. Indirect and any layout feature enabling are mostly for TX. We also did some optimization for single segment and non-offload case in TX, without using SSE, which also gives ~60% performance improvement, in Qian's result. My optimization is mostly for single segment and non-offload case, which i calls simple rx/tx. I plan to add virtio/vhost performance benchmark so that we could easily measure the performance difference for each patch.
Indirect and any layout features are useful for multiple segment transmitted packet mbufs. I had acked your patch at the first time, and thought it is applied. I don't understand why you say it is ignored by Intel. > >
