[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] examples/l3fwd: em path performance fix

2016-03-18 Thread Jerin Jacob
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:04:49AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-03-18 10:52, Tomasz Kulasek: > > +#if !defined(NO_HASH_MULTI_LOOKUP) && defined(__ARM_NEON) > > I think we should use CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM_NEON here. > Any ARM maintainer to confirm? __ARM_NEON should work existing GCC, but it

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] examples/l3fwd: em path performance fix

2016-03-18 Thread Jan Viktorin
szX > > ; dev at dpdk.org; jianbo.liu at linaro.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] examples/l3fwd: em path performance fix > > > > Hello Thomas, Jerin, Tomasz, all... > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:00:24 +0100 > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] examples/l3fwd: em path performance fix

2016-03-18 Thread Jan Viktorin
Hello Thomas, Jerin, Tomasz, all... On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:00:24 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-03-18 16:22, Jerin Jacob: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:04:49AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2016-03-18 10:52, Tomasz Kulasek: > > > > +#if !defined(NO_HASH_MULTI_LOOKUP) && defined(_

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] examples/l3fwd: em path performance fix

2016-03-18 Thread Kulasek, TomaszX
> -Original Message- > From: Jan Viktorin [mailto:viktorin at rehivetech.com] > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 12:57 > To: Thomas Monjalon > Cc: Jerin Jacob ; Kulasek, TomaszX > ; dev at dpdk.org; jianbo.liu at linaro.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] ex

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] examples/l3fwd: em path performance fix

2016-03-18 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-18 16:22, Jerin Jacob: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:04:49AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-03-18 10:52, Tomasz Kulasek: > > > +#if !defined(NO_HASH_MULTI_LOOKUP) && defined(__ARM_NEON) > > > > I think we should use CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM_NEON here. > > Any ARM maintainer to confirm? >

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] examples/l3fwd: em path performance fix

2016-03-18 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-18 10:52, Tomasz Kulasek: > +#if !defined(NO_HASH_MULTI_LOOKUP) && defined(__ARM_NEON) I think we should use CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM_NEON here. Any ARM maintainer to confirm? Note that there is already another occurence of this compiler flag: examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c:#elif defined(__ARM_NEON

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] examples/l3fwd: em path performance fix

2016-03-18 Thread Tomasz Kulasek
It seems that for the most use cases, previous hash_multi_lookup provides better performance, and more, sequential lookup can cause significant performance drop. This patch sets previously optional hash_multi_lookup method as default. It also provides some minor optimizations such as queue drain o