[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] lib/lpm: remove unnecessary inline

[Medvedkin, Vladimir]

Hi Wang,

1. It is better to explicitly use __rte_noinline with this function 
because my gcc still inlines it even without the inline qualifier.

2. The same should be applied to _v20 functions.

3. Please try running the tests again and show the results.

4. Make this patch the first in a series.

On 19/06/2019 06:36, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
> Tests showed that the 'inline' keyword caused performance drop
> on some x86 platforms after the memory ordering patches applied.
> By removing the 'inline' keyword, the performance was recovered
> as before on x86 and no impact to arm64 platforms.
>
> Suggested-by: Medvedkin Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang at arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu at arm.com>
> ---
> v2: initail version to recover rte_lpm_add() performance
>
>   lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> index 0addff5d4..c97b602e6 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> @@ -778,7 +778,7 @@ add_depth_small_v20(struct rte_lpm_v20 *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint8_t depth,
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> -static inline int32_t
> +static int32_t
>   add_depth_small_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint8_t depth,
>   		uint32_t next_hop)
>   {
> @@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ add_depth_big_v20(struct rte_lpm_v20 *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, uint8_t depth,
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> -static inline int32_t
> +static int32_t
>   add_depth_big_v1604(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, uint8_t depth,
>   		uint32_t next_hop)
>   {

-- 
Regards,
Vladimir