On 15/07/2020 10:47, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
14/07/2020 16:38, Stephen Hemminger:
"Kinsella, Ray" <m...@ashroe.eu> wrote:
On 13/07/2020 23:19, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Did anyone else see the recent AVX512 discussion from Linus:
"I hope AVX512 dies a painful death, and that Intel starts fixing real
problems
instead of trying to create magic instructions to then create benchmarks
that they can look good on.
Yup - I saw this one.
Sweeping statements like these are good to provoke debate, the truth is
generally more nuanced.
If you continue to read the post, Linus appears to be mostly questioning
microprocessor design decisions.
That is an interesting discussion, however the reality is that the technology
does exists and may be beneficial for Packet Processing.
I would suggest, we continue to apply the same logic governing adoption of any
technology by DPDK.
When the technology is present and a clear benefit is shown, we use it with
caution.
In the case of Vladimir's patch,
the user has to explicitly switch on the AVX512 lookup with
RTE_FIB_DIR24_8_VECTOR_AVX512.
Using what is available makes sense in DPDK.
Why does it require explicit enabling in application?
AVX512 is not reliable enough to be automatically used when available?
It is reliable enough. User have to explicitly trigger to avx512 lookup
because using avx512 instructions can reduce the frequency of your
cores. The user knows their environment better. So the scalar version is
used so as not to affect the frequency.
--
Regards,
Vladimir
