07/06/2023 14:04, Morten Brørup: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2023 12.32 > > > > 24/02/2023 19:10, Kamalakshitha Aligeri: > > > From: = Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > > > > There is an equal sign inserted above. > > Could be removed while applying?
Better to fix in next version. > > > Zero-copy access to mempool caches is beneficial for PMD performance, and > > > must be provided by the mempool library to fix [Bug 1052] without a > > > performance regression. > > > > > > [Bug 1052]: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1052 > > > > > > Bugzilla ID: 1052 > > > > It would be fun if the bug content was a link to an email :) > > More fun: refer to a place which will be deleted in some time. > > Really, please explain the problem in the patch. > > You can refer to the Bugzilla, but the idea must be in the patch. > > Then no need for the full link. > > > > > > OK, how about this: > > Zero-copy access to mempool caches is beneficial for PMD performance. > > Furthermore, having a zero-copy mempool API is considered a precondition for > fixing a certain category of bugs, present in some PMDs: For performance > reasons, some PMDs had bypassed the mempool API in order to achieve zero-copy > access to the mempool cache. This can only be fixed in those PMDs without a > performance regression if the mempool library offers zero-copy access APIs, > so the PMDs can use the proper mempool API instead of copy-pasting code from > the mempool library. Furthermore, the copy-pasted code in those PMDs has not > been kept up to date with the improvements of the mempool library, so when > they bypass the mempool API, mempool trace is missing and mempool statistics > is not updated. > > Bugzilla ID: 1052 Looks good, thanks.
