On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:41:59AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-05-26 13:37, Jerin Jacob:
> > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob
>
> Please Jerin (or anyone else), could you rebase this patch?
OK. I will send the rebased version
> Thanks
2016-05-26 13:37, Jerin Jacob:
> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob
Please Jerin (or anyone else), could you rebase this patch?
Thanks
On 06/17/2016 12:40 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Jerin,
>
> On 06/03/2016 09:02 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:16:16PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>> Hi Olivier,
>>
>>> This is probably more a measure of the pure CPU cost of the mempool
>>> function, without considering the
Hi Jerin,
On 06/03/2016 09:02 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:16:16PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
>
>> This is probably more a measure of the pure CPU cost of the mempool
>> function, without considering the memory cache aspect. So, of course,
>> a real use-case
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:16:16PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
Hi Olivier,
> This is probably more a measure of the pure CPU cost of the mempool
> function, without considering the memory cache aspect. So, of course,
> a real use-case test should be done to confirm or not that it increases
> the
Hi Jerin,
On 06/02/2016 11:39 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:36:34AM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>> I think the LIFO behavior should occur on a per-bulk basis. I mean,
>> it should behave like in the exemplaes below:
>>
>> // pool cache is in state X
>> obj1 =
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:36:34AM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi Jerin,
>
> On 06/01/2016 09:00 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:05:30PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> >> Today, the objects pointers are reversed only in the get(). It means
> >> that this code:
> >>
> >>
Hi Jerin,
On 06/01/2016 09:00 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:05:30PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>> Today, the objects pointers are reversed only in the get(). It means
>> that this code:
>>
>> rte_mempool_get_bulk(mp, table, 4);
>> for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
>>
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:05:30PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi Jerin,
Hi Olivier,
>
> >>> /* Add elements back into the cache */
> >>> - for (index = 0; index < n; ++index, obj_table++)
> >>> - cache_objs[index] = *obj_table;
> >>> + rte_memcpy(_objs[0], obj_table, sizeof(void *)
Hi Jerin,
>>> /* Add elements back into the cache */
>>> - for (index = 0; index < n; ++index, obj_table++)
>>> - cache_objs[index] = *obj_table;
>>> + rte_memcpy(_objs[0], obj_table, sizeof(void *) * n);
>>>
>>> cache->len += n;
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I also checked in the
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 10:45:11AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Jerin,
>
> On 05/26/2016 10:07 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob
> > ---
> > v1..v2
> > Corrected the the git commit message(s/mbuf/mempool/g)
> > ---
> > lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 5 ++---
> > 1
Hi Jerin,
On 05/26/2016 10:07 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob
> ---
> v1..v2
> Corrected the the git commit message(s/mbuf/mempool/g)
> ---
> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git
Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob
---
v1..v2
Corrected the the git commit message(s/mbuf/mempool/g)
---
lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
index 60339bd..24876a2
13 matches
Mail list logo
