Hi Alex,
On 05/07/2019 14:37, Alex Kiselev wrote:
пт, 5 июл. 2019 г. в 13:31, Medvedkin, Vladimir :
Hi Stephen,
On 28/06/2019 16:35, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:16:30 +0100
"Medvedkin, Vladimir" wrote:
Hi Honnappa,
On 28/06/2019 14:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
Hi a
пт, 5 июл. 2019 г. в 13:31, Medvedkin, Vladimir :
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 28/06/2019 16:35, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:16:30 +0100
> > "Medvedkin, Vladimir" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Honnappa,
> >>
> >> On 28/06/2019 14:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
t;> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 23:35
> >> To: Medvedkin, Vladimir
> >> Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli ; Ruifeng
> Wang
> >> (Arm Technology China) ;
> >> bruce.richard...@intel.com; dev@dpdk.org; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology
> >> China) ; nd
> >
@dpdk.org; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology
China) ; nd
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary
functions
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:16:30 +0100
"Medvedkin, Vladimir" wrote:
Hi Honnappa,
On 28/06/2019 14:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
Hi all,
On 28/06/2019 05:3
Hi Stephen,
On 28/06/2019 16:35, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:16:30 +0100
"Medvedkin, Vladimir" wrote:
Hi Honnappa,
On 28/06/2019 14:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
Hi all,
On 28/06/2019 05:34, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:44:54 +
"Ruifeng Wang (A
; China) ; nd
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary
> functions
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:16:30 +0100
> "Medvedkin, Vladimir" wrote:
>
> > Hi Honnappa,
> >
> > On 28/06/2019 14:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:16:30 +0100
"Medvedkin, Vladimir" wrote:
> Hi Honnappa,
>
> On 28/06/2019 14:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> On 28/06/2019 05:34, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:44:54 +
> >>> "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" wrote:
Hi Honnappa,
On 28/06/2019 14:57, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
Hi all,
On 28/06/2019 05:34, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:44:54 +
"Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" wrote:
Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop on
some x86 platforms with the
> Hi all,
>
> On 28/06/2019 05:34, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:44:54 +
> > "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" wrote:
> >
> >>>
> Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop on
> some x86 platforms with the memory ordering patches applie
Hi all,
On 28/06/2019 05:34, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:44:54 +
"Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" wrote:
Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop on
some x86 platforms with the memory ordering patches applied.
By force no-inline function
Hi Stephen,
On 27/06/2019 16:24, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:37:49 +0800
Ruifeng Wang wrote:
Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop
on some x86 platforms with the memory ordering patches applied.
By force no-inline functions, the performance was be
echnology China) ; nd
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary
> functions
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:44:54 +
> "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > Tests showed that the function inlining
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:44:54 +
"Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" wrote:
> >
> > > Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop on
> > > some x86 platforms with the memory ordering patches applied.
> > > By force no-inline functions, the performance was better than be
echnology China) ; nd
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib/lpm: not inline unnecessary
> functions
>
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:37:49 +0800
> Ruifeng Wang wrote:
>
> > Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop on
> > some x86 platforms with t
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:37:49 +0800
Ruifeng Wang wrote:
> Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop
> on some x86 platforms with the memory ordering patches applied.
> By force no-inline functions, the performance was better than
> before on x86 and no impact to arm64 platfor
Tests showed that the function inlining caused performance drop
on some x86 platforms with the memory ordering patches applied.
By force no-inline functions, the performance was better than
before on x86 and no impact to arm64 platforms.
Suggested-by: Medvedkin Vladimir
Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wan
16 matches
Mail list logo
