> -----Original Message----- > From: Ilya Maximets [mailto:i.maxim...@samsung.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 4:03 PM > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; d...@openvswitch.org > Cc: echau...@redhat.com; malvika.gu...@arm.com; Stokes, Ian > <ian.sto...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/5] dpcls func ptrs & optimizations > > On 17.07.2019 16:00, Harry van Haaren wrote: > > Hey Folks, > > > > Here a v12 of the DPCLS Function Pointer patchset, as has been > > presented at OVS Conf in Nov '18, and discussed on the ML since then. > > I'm aware of the soft-freeze for 2.12, I feel this patchset has had > > enough reviews/versions/testing to be merged in 2.12.
<snip> > > Harry van Haaren (5): > > dpif-netdev: Implement function pointers/subtable > > dpif-netdev: Move dpcls lookup structures to .h > > dpif-netdev: Split out generic lookup function > > dpif-netdev: Refactor generic implementation > > dpif-netdev: Add specialized generic scalar functions > > > > NEWS | 4 + > > lib/automake.mk | 2 + > > lib/dpif-netdev-lookup-generic.c | 290 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/dpif-netdev-private.h | 129 ++++++++++++++ > > lib/dpif-netdev.c | 197 ++++++++++----------- > > 5 files changed, 525 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 lib/dpif-netdev-lookup-generic.c > > create mode 100644 lib/dpif-netdev-private.h > > > > > I performed a few tests with v11 of this patch-set on my usual setup to > check > performance of the new generic (non-optimized) implementation. The result is > that > new generic implementation is ~5% faster for me than current master (it was > 12% > for optimized lookup functions) which is good. > The code looks OK for me in general. I still don't really like the fact that > dpcls depends on the internal structure of a flowmap, but we, probably, > could > deal with that while we have a build time assertion. Hope, we'll have some > better > implementation with the same level of performance in the future. Thanks for the feedback on performance Ilya - good to see that we're going in the right direction performance wise anyway. I have one item I'd still like to improve in this patchset, and its regarding where the blocks scratch array is being stored. I'll rework and find a better solution than the current, and post that as the lucky patchset v13 :) Cheers, -Harry _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev