On 06/17/2016 12:40 PM, Olivier Matz wrote: > Hi Jerin, > > On 06/03/2016 09:02 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:16:16PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote: >> Hi Olivier, >> >>> This is probably more a measure of the pure CPU cost of the mempool >>> function, without considering the memory cache aspect. So, of course, >>> a real use-case test should be done to confirm or not that it increases >>> the performance. I'll manage to do a test and let you know the result. >> >> OK >> >> IMO, put rte_memcpy makes sense(this patch) as their no behavior change. >> However, if get rte_memcpy with behavioral changes makes sense some platform >> then we can enable it on conditional basics(I am OK with that) >> >>> >>> By the way, not all drivers are allocating or freeing the mbufs by >>> bulk, so this modification would only affect these ones. What driver >>> are you using for your test? >> >> I have tested with ThunderX nicvf pmd(uses the bulk mode). >> Recently sent out driver in ml for review > > Just to let you know I do not forget this. I still need to > find some time to do a performance test.
Quoting from the other thread [1] too to save this in patchwork: [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-June/042701.html > On 06/24/2016 05:56 PM, Hunt, David wrote: >> Hi Jerin, >> >> I just ran a couple of tests on this patch on the latest master head on >> a couple of machines. An older quad socket E5-4650 and a quad socket >> E5-2699 v3 >> >> E5-4650: >> I'm seeing a gain of 2% for un-cached tests and a gain of 9% on the >> cached tests. >> >> E5-2699 v3: >> I'm seeing a loss of 0.1% for un-cached tests and a gain of 11% on the >> cached tests. >> >> This is purely the autotest comparison, I don't have traffic generator >> results. But based on the above, I don't think there are any performance >> issues with the patch. >> > > Thanks for doing the test on your side. I think it's probably enough > to integrate Jerin's patch . > > About using a rte_memcpy() in the mempool_get(), I don't think I'll have > the time to do a more exhaustive test before the 16.07, so I'll come > back with it later. > > I'm sending an ack on the v2 thread. Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>
