About replacing rte_memcpy with memcpy()... > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, 20 August 2026 07.12 > > The DPDK function rte_memcpy() only exists as an optimization > for shortcomings in performance of libc memcpy() on some platforms.
Yes, and those platforms should benefit from it. E.g. the vhost performance improvements for Haswell and Broadwell [1]. Where similar performance improvements implemented in the relevant compilers (GCC, Clang, MSVC)? [1]: https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/commit/4b42e90ef0e421dc777f2b2e377eb237cd3675fa IMO, performance should remain a high priority for DPDK. > Many platforms have no special rte_memcpy() and just use memcpy(). > > But many analysis and test tools know that memcpy() is a special > case and check for overwrite, bounds errors etc. Therefore memcpy() > should be preferred wherever possible. I think this is the only substantial benefit of replacing rte_memcpy() with memcpy()! Could we reap this benefit by having special builds for such tools, where rte_memcpy() is modified to use memcpy() instead? Then we wouldn't have to compromise on performance. Also, rte_memcpy() used to have a pragma disabling bounds checks due to some Intel drivers using [0] instead of []; the pragma was removed from rte_memcpy() when the Intel drivers were fixed. I'm not sufficiently familiar with analysis/test tools to say what they can detect when using memcpy() instead of the copy methods used by rte_memcpy(). > > This patch series introduces a coccinelle script to find > calls to rte_memcpy() where size is fixed, and change them to > regular memcpy(). This was the starting point for this cleanup. > > There is also some cleanups to include rte_memcpy.h and string.h > where needed. Often the includes were happening by some other > header. And also removal of rte_memcpy.h where no longer needed. > > The result is a 46% reduction in use of rte_memcpy. > The remaining rte_memcpy can be cleaned up later: > - drivers with active maintenance (like mlx5); > - changes to rte_memcpy which need benchmarking; > - test code for rte_memcpy can be removed as last step. > > No functional change, no warnings in all compilers including LTO. memcpy() does not always use inline vector instructions for fixed size copy [2]. [2]: https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/[email protected]/ Another disadvantage of rte_memcpy() is the lack of developer guidance. It is not well documented when to use rte_memcpy() and when to use memcpy(). We discussed something similar on the Tech Board meeting yesterday; it is not well documented when to use which type of "ring" (normal, RTS, HTS), so maybe we could remove one of them. But removing an option is not an improvement, if the removed option would have been the better choice for some use cases. PS: The general guidance for rte_memcpy() usage is something like: rte_memcpy() only in fast path, memcpy() everywhere else, assignment "=" when copying fixed size structures.
