Re: [PATCH v2] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-04-04 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 06:10:32PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2024 17.56 > > > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:37:53 +0200 > > Morten Brørup wrote: > > > > > > I would tend to agree with Stephen that whereever p

RE: [PATCH v2] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-04-04 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2024 17.56 > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:37:53 +0200 > Morten Brørup wrote: > > > > I would tend to agree with Stephen that whereever possible we should use > > > the built-in memcpy calls. Hence my suggestion of

Re: [PATCH v2] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-04-04 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:37:53 +0200 Morten Brørup wrote: > > I would tend to agree with Stephen that whereever possible we should use > > the built-in memcpy calls. Hence my suggestion of re-introducing the macro. > > > > I agree in principle, but strongly prefer data to back up such changes in

RE: [PATCH v2] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-04-04 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2024 15.29 > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:19:54PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2024 12.07 > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 03,

Re: [PATCH v2] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-04-04 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:19:54PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2024 12.07 > > > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:46:21AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > > > When the rte_memcpy() size is 16, the same 16 bytes are

RE: [PATCH v2] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-04-04 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2024 12.07 > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:46:21AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > > When the rte_memcpy() size is 16, the same 16 bytes are copied twice. > > In the case where the size is known to be 16 at build t

Re: [PATCH v2] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-04-04 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:46:21AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > When the rte_memcpy() size is 16, the same 16 bytes are copied twice. > In the case where the size is known to be 16 at build tine, omit the > duplicate copy. > > Reduced the amount of effectively copy-pasted code by using #ifdef > i

RE: [PATCH v2] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-04-04 Thread Morten Brørup
PING Intel x86 maintainers for review. > From: Morten Brørup [mailto:m...@smartsharesystems.com] > Sent: Sunday, 3 March 2024 10.46 > > When the rte_memcpy() size is 16, the same 16 bytes are copied twice. > In the case where the size is known to be 16 at build tine, omit the > duplicate copy. >

[PATCH v2] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-03-03 Thread Morten Brørup
When the rte_memcpy() size is 16, the same 16 bytes are copied twice. In the case where the size is known to be 16 at build tine, omit the duplicate copy. Reduced the amount of effectively copy-pasted code by using #ifdef inside functions instead of outside functions. Suggested-by: Stephen Hemmin