Re: [PATCH v8] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-07-09 Thread Patrick Robb
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 8:48 AM David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:43 PM Morten Brørup > wrote: > > PS: The CI should catch this stuff. > > Restoring OVS tests in CI has been requested and I think it was being worked > on. > Not sure where we are atm, Patrick? > OvS and SPDK com

RE: [PATCH v8] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-07-09 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: David Marchand [mailto:david.march...@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2024 14.48 > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:43 PM Morten Brørup > wrote: > > PS: The CI should catch this stuff. Working on fixing it now, some old variants of rte_mov16() do the extra cast, and some don't. It could b

Re: [PATCH v8] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-07-09 Thread David Marchand
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:43 PM Morten Brørup wrote: > PS: The CI should catch this stuff. Restoring OVS tests in CI has been requested and I think it was being worked on. Not sure where we are atm, Patrick? -- David Marchand

RE: [PATCH v8] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-07-09 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: David Marchand [mailto:david.march...@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2024 13.43 > > Hello, > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:24 AM David Marchand > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:40 PM Konstantin Ananyev > > wrote: > > > > When the rte_memcpy() size is 16, the same 16 bytes a

Re: [PATCH v8] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-07-09 Thread David Marchand
Hello, On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:24 AM David Marchand wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:40 PM Konstantin Ananyev > 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 time, omit the > > > duplicate copy

Re: [PATCH v8] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-07-09 Thread David Marchand
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:40 PM Konstantin Ananyev 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 time, omit the > > duplicate copy. > > > > Reduced the amount of effectively copy-pasted code by using #ifde

RE: [PATCH v8] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-06-10 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Konstantin Ananyev [mailto:konstantin.anan...@huawei.com] > Sent: Monday, 10 June 2024 15.40 > > > 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 time, omit the > > duplicate copy. > > > > Reduced the amount o

RE: [PATCH v8] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-06-10 Thread Konstantin Ananyev
> 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 time, omit the > duplicate copy. > > Reduced the amount of effectively copy-pasted code by using #ifdef > inside functions instead of outside functions. > > Suggested-

RE: [PATCH v8] eal/x86: improve rte_memcpy const size 16 performance

2024-06-10 Thread Morten Brørup
PING for review. The CI failures can be ignored: Most of the CI doesn't support the Depends-on tag, and this patch uses __rte_constant(), provided by Tyler's patch series [1]. [1]: https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/1710970416-27841-1-git-send-email-roret...@linux.microsoft.com/ -Morten > From: Morte