Message ID | 20190813100248.8000-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5332A1BE83; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:03:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3D11BE0C for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:03:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE63337; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 03:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from net-arm-c2400-02.shanghai.arm.com (net-arm-c2400-02.shanghai.arm.com [10.169.40.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6A3793F706; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 03:03:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com> To: jerinj@marvell.com, gavin.hu@arm.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org, honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, nd@arm.com, Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:02:46 +0800 Message-Id: <20190813100248.8000-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> |
Series |
IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64
|
|
Message
Ruifeng Wang
Aug. 13, 2019, 10:02 a.m. UTC
Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform. An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed. Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics. Both of the changes will help to improve performance. Ruifeng Wang (2): net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64 net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64 drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32 ++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
Comments
Hi, Thanks for the patches, could you also provide the Fixes tag and cc stable? The patchset looks good to me. Thanks, Xiaolong On 08/13, Ruifeng Wang wrote: >Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform. >An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed. >Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics. >Both of the changes will help to improve performance. > >Ruifeng Wang (2): > net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64 > net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64 > > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32 ++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > >-- >2.17.1 >
Hi Xiaolong, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> > Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 09:34 > To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com> > Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) > <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli > <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64 > > Hi, > > Thanks for the patches, could you also provide the Fixes tag and cc stable? > The patchset looks good to me. Code changes in both patches are not for bug fixing. Patch 1/2 includes fix for code comments. I don't think it deserves a Fixes tag or backporting. Can we skip the Fixes tag? > > Thanks, > Xiaolong > > On 08/13, Ruifeng Wang wrote: > >Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform. > >An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed. > >Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics. > >Both of the changes will help to improve performance. > > > >Ruifeng Wang (2): > > net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64 > > net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64 > > > > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32 ++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > >-- > >2.17.1 > >
On 8/26/2019 3:52 AM, Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) wrote: > Hi Xiaolong, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> >> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 09:34 >> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com> >> Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) >> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli >> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64 >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the patches, could you also provide the Fixes tag and cc stable? >> The patchset looks good to me. > > Code changes in both patches are not for bug fixing. > Patch 1/2 includes fix for code comments. I don't think it deserves a Fixes tag or backporting. Can we skip the Fixes tag? In 1/2 a memory barrier is removed, it means it was wrong to add it at first place and you are fixing it, no? Performance improvements are in gray are, but if there is no ABI/API break why not take is performance fix and backport and have the performance improvement in LTS? Also I think taking as much as possible may help to maintain LTS, since it reduces the chance of conflict in later commits, LTS is two years and these small things can accumulate and make getting important fixes hard by time. Is there any specific reason not to backport these patches to LTS releases? > >> >> Thanks, >> Xiaolong >> >> On 08/13, Ruifeng Wang wrote: >>> Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform. >>> An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed. >>> Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics. >>> Both of the changes will help to improve performance. >>> >>> Ruifeng Wang (2): >>> net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64 >>> net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64 >>> >>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32 ++++++++++++------------- >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>> >>> -- >>> 2.17.1 >>>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 18:40 > To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; Ye > Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> > Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) > <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli > <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; Kevin Traynor > <ktraynor@redhat.com>; Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64 > > On 8/26/2019 3:52 AM, Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) wrote: > > Hi Xiaolong, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> > >> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 09:34 > >> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com> > >> Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) > >> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli > >> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64 > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Thanks for the patches, could you also provide the Fixes tag and cc stable? > >> The patchset looks good to me. > > > > Code changes in both patches are not for bug fixing. > > Patch 1/2 includes fix for code comments. I don't think it deserves a Fixes > tag or backporting. Can we skip the Fixes tag? > > In 1/2 a memory barrier is removed, it means it was wrong to add it at first > place and you are fixing it, no? > > > Performance improvements are in gray are, but if there is no ABI/API break > why not take is performance fix and backport and have the performance > improvement in LTS? > Also I think taking as much as possible may help to maintain LTS, since it > reduces the chance of conflict in later commits, LTS is two years and these > small things can accumulate and make getting important fixes hard by time. > > Is there any specific reason not to backport these patches to LTS releases? > Thanks for your explanation. Understand that. No objection to backporting. I'll send out new version. > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Xiaolong > >> > >> On 08/13, Ruifeng Wang wrote: > >>> Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform. > >>> An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed. > >>> Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics. > >>> Both of the changes will help to improve performance. > >>> > >>> Ruifeng Wang (2): > >>> net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64 > >>> net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64 > >>> > >>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32 > >>> ++++++++++++------------- > >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 2.17.1 > >>>