2014-11-12 15:51, Bruce Richardson:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:53:40AM +0200, jigsaw wrote:
> > This patch has little, if any, performance impact.
> > See the perf stat -d for original and patched version
> > of test_distributor_perf.
>
> Thanks for running the test. Results look ok to me. I
2014-11-13 08:56, jigsaw:
> >>Do you have another commit before this one in your tree?
>
> Yes this patch relies on this one:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/007943.html
>
> Sorry I didn't make it clear. The new field usr in rte_mbuf was under same
> cover letter in v2 of the
Hi Thomas,
>>Do you have another commit before this one in your tree?
Yes this patch relies on this one:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/007943.html
Sorry I didn't make it clear. The new field usr in rte_mbuf was under same
cover letter in v2 of the in_flight_bitmask patch.
Then
Hi,
2014-11-10 16:44, Qinglai Xiao:
> With introduction of in_flight_bitmask, the whole 32 bits of tag can be
> used. Further more, this patch fixed the integer overflow when finding
> the matched tags.
> The maximum number workers is now defined as 64, which is length of
> double-word. The link
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:53:40AM +0200, jigsaw wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> This patch has little, if any, performance impact.
> See the perf stat -d for original and patched version
> of test_distributor_perf.
Thanks for running the test. Results look ok to me. I confirm my previous ack.
/Bruce
>
Hi Bruce,
This patch has little, if any, performance impact.
See the perf stat -d for original and patched version
of test_distributor_perf.
Original version
perf stat -d ./test_orig -c -n2
Cache line switch test ===
[4/4590]
Time for 1048576 iterations =
Hi Bruce,
Sorry I didn't. I will run a performance test tomorrow.
thx &
rgds,
-qinglai
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Bruce Richardson <
bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:44:02PM +0200, Qinglai Xiao wrote:
> > With introduction of in_flight_bitmask, the whole
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:52:26PM +0200, jigsaw wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Sorry I didn't. I will run a performance test tomorrow.
>
> thx &
> rgds,
> -qinglai
>
On the assumption that no performance regressions show up...
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Bruce
With introduction of in_flight_bitmask, the whole 32 bits of tag can be
used. Further more, this patch fixed the integer overflow when finding
the matched tags.
The maximum number workers is now defined as 64, which is length of
double-word. The link between number of workers and RTE_MAX_LCORE is
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:44:02PM +0200, Qinglai Xiao wrote:
> With introduction of in_flight_bitmask, the whole 32 bits of tag can be
> used. Further more, this patch fixed the integer overflow when finding
> the matched tags.
> The maximum number workers is now defined as 64, which is length of
10 matches
Mail list logo
