[dpdk-dev] [RFC] ring: make ring implementation non-inlined

[Ananyev, Konstantin]

Hi Jerin,

> 
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:11 PM Konstantin Ananyev
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > As was discussed here:
> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-February/158586.html
> > this RFC aimed to hide ring internals into .c and make all
> > ring functions non-inlined. In theory that might help to
> > maintain ABI stability in future.
> > This is just a POC to measure the impact of proposed idea,
> > proper implementation would definetly need some extra effort.
> > On IA box (SKX) ring_perf_autotest shows ~20-30 cycles extra for
> > enqueue+dequeue pair. On some more realistic code, I suspect
> > the impact it might be a bit higher.
> > For MP/MC bulk transfers degradation seems quite small,
> > though for SP/SC and/or small transfers it is more then noticable
> > (see exact numbers below).
> > From my perspective we'd probably keep it inlined for now
> > to avoid any non-anticipated perfomance degradations.
> > Though intersted to see perf results and opinions from
> > other interested parties.
> 
> +1
> 
> My reasoning is a bit different, DPDK is using in embedded boxes too
> where performance has
> more weight than ABI stuff. I think we need to focus first on slow
> path APIs ABI stuff.
> 
> I spend a few cycles to apply this patch +
> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-February/158586.html
> on top of the tree, there are a lot of conflicts. If I get a mergeable
> patch then I will test it on an arm64 box.

You don’t need to apply previous patch series.
They are completely unrelated.
Just apply that one (http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/66982/)
on top of dpdk.org master.
It should be applied cleanly (at least it does for me). 
Konstantin


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8160 CPU @ 2.10GHz
> > ring_perf_autotest (without patch/with patch)