On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:44:35 +0100, Thomas Monjalon
wrote:
> Do we need to discuss again the prefetch calls inside DPDK
> or can we definitely close this kind of request?
> mbuf: http://dpdk.org/patch/4678/
> ethdev: http://dpdk.org/patch/8867/
>
About the mbuf prefetch, I suggest th
Do we need to discuss again the prefetch calls inside DPDK
or can we definitely close this kind of request?
mbuf: http://dpdk.org/patch/4678/
ethdev: http://dpdk.org/patch/8867/
2015-07-20 10:02, Olivier MATZ:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
> On 07/20/2015 03:00 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >
Hi Thomas,
On 07/20/2015 03:00 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Please Olivier,
> What is the status of this patch?
>From what I remember, the last mail was a comment from Konstantin
on another thread (but same topic):
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017633.html
Regards,
Olivier
>
> 20
Please Olivier,
What is the status of this patch?
2015-05-12 01:15, Paul Emmerich:
> this improves the throughput of a simple tx-only application by 11% in
> the full-featured ixgbe tx path and by 14% in the simple tx path.
> ---
> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+
this improves the throughput of a simple tx-only application by 11% in
the full-featured ixgbe tx path and by 14% in the simple tx path.
---
lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
index ab6de67..f6895b4
5 matches
Mail list logo