[dpdk-dev] [ [PATCH v2] 01/13] virtio: Introduce config RTE_VIRTIO_INC_VECTOR

[Thomas Monjalon]

2015-12-18 09:52, Xie, Huawei:
> On 12/18/2015 7:25 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:32:38 +0530
> > Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com> wrote:
> >>> virtio_recv_pkts_vec and other virtio vector friend apis are written for sse/avx
> >>> instructions. For arm64 in particular, virtio vector implementation does not
> >>> exist(todo).
> >>>
> >>> So virtio pmd driver wont build for targets like i686, arm64.  By making
> >>> RTE_VIRTIO_INC_VECTOR=n, Driver can build for non-sse/avx targets and will work
> >>> in non-vectored virtio mode.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com>
> >>> ---
> >> Ping?
> >>
> >> any review  / comment on this patch much appreciated. Thanks
> > The patches I posted (and were ignored by Intel) to support indirect
> > and any layout should have much bigger performance gain than all this
> > low level SSE bit twiddling.
> Hi Stephen:
> We only did SSE twiddling to RX, which almost doubles the performance
> comparing to normal path in virtio/vhost performance test case. Indirect
> and any layout feature enabling are mostly for TX. We also did some
> optimization for single segment and non-offload case in TX, without
> using SSE, which also gives ~60% performance improvement, in Qian's
> result. My optimization is mostly for single segment and non-offload
> case, which i calls simple rx/tx.
> I plan to add virtio/vhost performance benchmark so that we could easily
> measure the performance difference for each patch.
> 
> Indirect and any layout features are useful for multiple segment
> transmitted packet mbufs. I had acked your patch at the first time, and
> thought it is applied. I don't understand why you say it is ignored by
> Intel.

There was an error and Stephen never replied nor pinged about it:
	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026984.html
It happens.
Reminder: it is the responsibility of the author to get patches reviewed
and accepted.
Please let's avoid useless blaming.