On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:58:49AM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:15:25 +0200
> Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>
> > 2017-03-31 09:18, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +020
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:15:25 +0200
Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-03-31 09:18, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > > > I replayed my tests, and I can also see a
2017-03-31 09:18, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > > I replayed my tests, and I can also see a performance loss with 1c/1t
> > > > (ixgbe), not in the same magnitude h
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have any other comment on this series?
> Can it be applied?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Olivier
>
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:41:52 +0100, Olivier Matz
> wrote:
> > Based on discussions done in [1] and in this thread,
uce
> > > ; Olivier Matz
> > >
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; m...@smartsharesystems.com; Chilikin, Andrey
> > > ; jblu...@infradead.org;
> > > nelio.laranje...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com
> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: str
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:18:22 +, "Ananyev, Konstantin"
wrote:
> BTW, path #9 need to be removed anyway, even if will go for path #1.
Yes
gt; > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 1:23 PM
> > > > > > > To: Olivier Matz
> > > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > > > > ; m...@smartsharesystems.com;
> > > > > > > Chilikin, Andrey
> > &g
; > > > > > > To: Olivier Matz
> > > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > > > > ; m...@smartsharesystems.com;
> > > > > > > Chilikin, Andrey
> > > > > > > ; jblu...@infradead.org;
: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > > > > ; m...@smartsharesystems.com;
> > > > > > Chilikin, Andrey
> > > > > > ; jblu...@infradead.org;
> > > > > > nelio.laranje...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com
> > >
t; > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; m...@smartsharesystems.com; Chilikin, Andrey
> > ; jblu...@infradead.org;
> > nelio.laranje...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Ori
> > > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 1:23 PM
> > > > > To: Olivier Matz
> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin ;
> > > > > m...@smartsharesystems.com; Chilikin, Andrey
> > > > > ; j
gt; > To: Olivier Matz
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin ;
> > > > m...@smartsharesystems.com; Chilikin, Andrey
> > > > ; jblu...@infradead.org;
> > > > nelio.laranje...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev,
> Konstantin
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:01 AM
>
> After applying the patch below got nearly original numbers (though not
> quite) on my box.
> dpdk.org mainline: 50.8
> with Olivier patch:
om; Chilikin, Andrey
> > > ; jblu...@infradead.org;
> > > nelio.laranje...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:02:36PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrot
ranje...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:45
.org;
> nelio.laranje...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 1:23 PM
> > To: Oliv
rybche...@solarflare.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:02:36PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:31:08 +0100, Bruce Richardson
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:09:23PM +0100
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:41:52AM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Based on discussions done in [1] and in this thread, this patchset reorganizes
> the mbuf.
>
> The main changes are:
> - reorder structure to increase vector performance on some non-ia
> platforms.
> - add a 64bits timestamp field i
On 03/08/2017 12:41 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
Based on discussions done in [1] and in this thread, this patchset reorganizes
the mbuf.
The main changes are:
- reorder structure to increase vector performance on some non-ia
platforms.
- add a 64bits timestamp field in the 1st cache line. This ti
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:02:36PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:31:08 +0100, Bruce Richardson
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:09:23PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Do
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:31:08 +0100, Bruce Richardson
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:09:23PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any other comment on this series?
> > > Can it be applied?
>
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:09:23PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anyone have any other comment on this series?
> > Can it be applied?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Olivier
> >
>
> I assume all driver maintainers ha
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have any other comment on this series?
> Can it be applied?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Olivier
>
I assume all driver maintainers have done performance analysis to check
for regressions. Perhaps they can confirm this is th
> Does anyone have any other comment on this series?
Great work!
> Can it be applied?
Yes.
Med venlig hilsen / kind regards
- Morten Brørup
Hi,
Does anyone have any other comment on this series?
Can it be applied?
Thanks,
Olivier
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:41:52 +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Based on discussions done in [1] and in this thread, this patchset reorganizes
> the mbuf.
>
> The main changes are:
> - reorder structure to i
Based on discussions done in [1] and in this thread, this patchset reorganizes
the mbuf.
The main changes are:
- reorder structure to increase vector performance on some non-ia
platforms.
- add a 64bits timestamp field in the 1st cache line. This timestamp
is not normalized, i.e. no unit or ti
26 matches
Mail list logo
