On 02/11/2015 12:57, Jerin Jacob wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:22:47PM +0000, Hunt, David wrote: >> Jerin, >> I've just benchmarked the libc version against the hand-coded version of >> the memcpy routines, and the libc wins in most cases. This code was just an >> initial attempt at optimising the memccpy's, so I feel that with the current >> benchmark results, it would better just to remove the assembly versions, and >> use the libc version for the initial release on ARMv8. >> Then, in the future, the ARMv8 experts are free to submit an optimised >> version as a patch in the future. Does that sound reasonable to you? > > Make sense. Based on my understanding, other blocks are also not optimized > for arm64. > So better to revert back to CONFIG_RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS and > libc for initial version. > > BTW: I just tested ./arm64-armv8a-linuxapp-gcc/app/test and > "byteorder_autotest" is broken. I think existing arm64 code is not optimized > beyond CONFIG_RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS. So better to use verified > CONFIG_RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS scheme.
Agreed. > if you guys are OK with arm and arm64 as two different platform then > I can summit the complete working patch for arm64.(as in my current source > code "arm64" is a different > platform(lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm64/) Sure. That would be great. We initially started with two ARMv7 patch-sets, and Jan merged into one. Something similar could happen for the ARMv8 patch set. We just want to end up with the best implementation possible. :) Dave.
