> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:02 PM Nicolau, Radu <radu.nico...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/13/2020 8:11 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:22 PM Ananyev, Konstantin > > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote: > > >>> On 10/6/2020 11:13 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 5:35 PM > > >>>>>> To: Nicolau, Radu <radu.nico...@intel.com> > > >>>>>> Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Richardson, > > >>>>>> Bruce > > >>>>>> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > > >>>>>> <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Van Haaren, Harry > > >>>>>> <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; jer...@marvell.com; nd > > >>>>>> <n...@arm.com> > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] event/sw: performance improvements > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:32 PM Nicolau, Radu > > >>>>>> <radu.nico...@intel.com> wrote: > > > a concern that another library not uses public ring API, > > >>>> but instead accesses ring internals directly. Obviously such coding > > >>>> practice is not welcomed > > >>>> as it makes harder to maintain/extend ring library in future. > > >>>> About 2) - these new API can(/shoud) be marked an experimental anyway. > > >>>> As another thing - it is still unclear what a performance gain we are > > >>>> talking about here. > > >>>> Is it really worth it comparing to just using SP/SC? > > >>> The change itself came after I analyzed the memory bound sections of the > > >>> code, and I just did a quick test, I got about 3.5% improvement in > > >>> throughput, maybe not so much but significant for such a small change, > > >>> and depending on the usecase it may be more. > > >>> > > >>> As for the implementation itself, I would favour having a custom ring > > >>> like container in the PMD code, this will solve the issue of using > > >>> rte_ring internals while still allow for full optimisation. If this is > > >>> acceptable, I will follow up by tomorrow. > > >> Sounds ok to me. > > > Nicolau Radu, > > > > > > Could you supersede this patch, if the plan is to send it to a new > > > version based on a custom ring? > > The v3 (https://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/79879/) sent last week > > implements the custom ring and does not use the rte_ring internals. v1 > > and v2 are superseded. > > Ok. Looks good to me. @Honnappa Nagarahalli @Ananyev, Konstantin , > I will merge this patch if there are no more objections for v3.
No objections from me.
