rch 27, 2015 10:26 AM
>>> To: Wiles, Keith
>>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: optimize refcnt handling during free
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:00:33PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:17 PM
> To: Olivier MATZ
> Cc: Neil Horman; Ananyev, Konstantin; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: optimize refcnt handling during free
>
> On Fri, Mar 27,
; From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 10:26 AM
> >>> To: Wiles, Keith
> >>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: optimize refcnt handling during free
> &
Hi Neil,
On 03/27/2015 11:25 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:00:33PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/26/15, 1:10 PM, "Zoltan Kiss" wrote:
>>
>>> The current way is not the most efficient: if m->refcnt is 1, the second
>>> condition never evaluates, and we set it to 0.
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 10:26 AM
> To: Wiles, Keith
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: optimize refcnt handling during free
>
> On Thu, Ma
dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: optimize refcnt handling during free
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:00:33PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/26/15, 1:10 PM, "Zoltan Kiss" wrote:
> > >
> > &g
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:00:33PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> On 3/26/15, 1:10 PM, "Zoltan Kiss" wrote:
>
> >The current way is not the most efficient: if m->refcnt is 1, the second
> >condition never evaluates, and we set it to 0. If refcnt > 1, the 2nd
> >condition fails again, although
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:00:33PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> On 3/26/15, 1:10 PM, "Zoltan Kiss" wrote:
>
> >The current way is not the most efficient: if m->refcnt is 1, the second
> >condition never evaluates, and we set it to 0. If refcnt > 1, the 2nd
> >condition fails again, although
On 3/26/15, 1:10 PM, "Zoltan Kiss" wrote:
>The current way is not the most efficient: if m->refcnt is 1, the second
>condition never evaluates, and we set it to 0. If refcnt > 1, the 2nd
>condition fails again, although the code suggest otherwise to branch
>prediction. Instead we should keep th
The current way is not the most efficient: if m->refcnt is 1, the second
condition never evaluates, and we set it to 0. If refcnt > 1, the 2nd
condition fails again, although the code suggest otherwise to branch
prediction. Instead we should keep the second condition only, and remove the
duplicate
10 matches
Mail list logo
