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:
> > 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
>
>
> >
> > 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(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> >> index ab6de67..f6895b4 100644
> >> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> >> @@ -538,6 +538,7 @@ static inline struct rte_mbuf
> >> *__rte_mbuf_raw_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp)
> >> if (rte_mempool_get(mp, &mb) < 0)
> >> return NULL;
> >> m = (struct rte_mbuf *)mb;
> >> + rte_prefetch0(&m->cacheline1);
> >> RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) == 0);
> >> rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> >> return (m);
> >>
> >
> >
