06/04/2020 15:50, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> >> >06/04/2020 14:33, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula:
> >> >> >> From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
> >> >> >> > >+uint16_t
> >> >> >> > >+rte_regexdev_enqueue_burst(uint8_t dev_id, uint16_t
> >> >qp_id,
> >> >> >> > >+ struct rte_regex_ops **ops, uint16_t
> >> >nb_ops)
> >> >> >> > >+{
> >> >> >> > >+ return regex_devices[dev_id]-
> >> >> >> > >>enqueue(regex_devices[dev_id], qp_id,
> >> >> >> > >+ ops, nb_ops);
> >> >> >> > >+}
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Move these functions to .h in-lining them.
> >> >> >> > Also, please add debug checks @see
> >> >> >rte_eth_rx_burst/rte_eth_tx_burst.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> O.K will update.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In general, inlining is a pain for ABI compatibility.
> >> >> >Please inline only if the gain is very significant.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The performance gain mostly comes from hoisting
> >> >`regex_devices[dev_id]` load above the
> >> >> poll loop.
> >> >> Since, the performance measurement application is still in pipeline
> >> >and regexdev would be
> >> >> experimental for next couple of releases I suggest inlining it now
> >and
> >> >worrying about ABI when
> >> >> experimental tag needs to be removed.
> >> >
> >> >No, we must worry about ABI from the beginning.
> >>
> >> I though performance was the primary objective :-).
> >
> >It is.
> >
> >> >> We can follow the same path as done by ethdev
> >> >[https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >3A__www.mail-
> >> >2Darchive.com_dev-
> >>
> >>40dpdk.org_msg142392.html&d=DwICAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xt
> >f
> >> >Q&r=E3SgYMjtKCMVsB-fmvgGV3o-
> >> >g_fjLhk5Pupi9ijohpc&m=7Gqb6WKmZV5uY3xa7FRVrRVDz8Usrsd-
> >>
> >>rDjIKr6CUQQ&s=sQo2Kx9fzTNXwiQ2Fzki3s5GSuiiAEzz2VtN68_KKXo&e
> >=
> >> >]
> >> >
> >> >ethdev is not an argument.
> >>
> >> What about ring? [https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> >3A__mails.dpdk.org_archives_dev_2020-
> >2DApril_161506.html&d=DwICAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=E3S
> >gYMjtKCMVsB-fmvgGV3o-
> >g_fjLhk5Pupi9ijohpc&m=u9gnM_YrOJDusN4yR8YUcUuUkri4tOjnHrQ0A
> >Qd5zTw&s=uv6AQA-
> >Zu7o6ugyhpGHLxFOk4SfEdkHfFGDmhzANRME&e= ]
> >>
> >> Why do we need to prove the same performance advantage using in-
> >lining for datapath
> >> critical functions again and again?
> >
> >Because every libraries have not the same usage and load.
> >We should compare how much cycle is saved with inline vs
> >how much cycles is, "in average", a regex burst?
> >
> >If you tell me regex processing is fast, OK, let's inline.
> >
>
> Regex processing speed would still be dependent on underlying device
> capabilities.
>
> All we are trying to do is reduce the enqueue/dequeue completion time which
> would
> bring down the overall latency.
Take your regex HW and do a simple regex processing burst.
How many cycles it takes to complete?
How many cycles you lose if not inline?
If the ratio is lower than 1/200, I think inline is not a must.
Ori, please consider the same measure for your HW.
