2015-12-18 09:33, Stephen Hemminger: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:52:29 +0000 > "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie at intel.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Sorry, did not mean to blame Intel, ... more that why didn't it get in 2.2?
I've already answered to this question: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-December/030540.html There was a compilation error and you have not followed up.
