On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:26:41PM +0100, Michal Orsák wrote:
> >>>>>>For such workload, I don't think it would behaviour worse on ARM.
> >>>>>No reply yet; I will treat it as no objections, and please shout out if
> >>>>>any.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Both applied to dpdk-next-virtio.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --yliu
> >>>>Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>currently I am running short of time. If you have any test prepared which
> >>>>i
> >>>>can just ran, please send me a link.
> >>>No link, but you could try:
> >>>
> >>>- a typical PVP test
> >>>
> >>>- a txonly test: running txonly fwd mode in guest PMD while running
> >>> rxonly in fwd mode.
> >>>
> >>>The second is a micro test, thus I saw way bigger boost.
> >>>
> >>>When are you available for the testing, btw?
> >>25.1.2017+
> >Okay, I will hold on a while to apply them.
> Ok, I will send you results when I have them.
Again, no reply yet. I'm appying them to dpdk-next-virtio. I really
don't think it could perform worse in ARM, as it removes a costly
cache invalidation operation (which should be more expensive than the
instruction cycles).
OTOH, again, testing is welcome, if it's later proved to be worse on
ARM (which I highly doubt), I could revert them.
--yliu
