[0/4] lacp rx/tx handlers fixes for bonding pmd
mbox series

Message ID 1554900829-16180-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com
Headers show
Series
  • lacp rx/tx handlers fixes for bonding pmd
Related show

Message

David Marchand April 10, 2019, 12:53 p.m. UTC 
Another series with focus on the fast/normal rx/tx handlers for 802.3ad.

The first two patches make sure that the rx (resp. tx) fast and normal
handlers are equivalent.

The third one will most likely have an impact on performance which I
tried to mitigate with the last one. However, I have no benchmark to
back those patches and I did not test those thoroughly, so they are
more like RFC patches but sending anyway.

Comments

Ferruh Yigit June 27, 2019, 8:08 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 4/10/2019 1:53 PM, David Marchand wrote:
> Another series with focus on the fast/normal rx/tx handlers for 802.3ad.
> 
> The first two patches make sure that the rx (resp. tx) fast and normal
> handlers are equivalent.
> 
> The third one will most likely have an impact on performance which I
> tried to mitigate with the last one. However, I have no benchmark to
> back those patches and I did not test those thoroughly, so they are
> more like RFC patches but sending anyway.
> 
> 

Hi Chas,

Reminder of this patchset, it is waiting for a long time, if there is no
objection I am for merging it.

Thanks,
ferruh
WILLIAMS, CHARLES J June 27, 2019, 12:07 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 6/27/19 4:08 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 4/10/2019 1:53 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>> Another series with focus on the fast/normal rx/tx handlers for 802.3ad.
>>
>> The first two patches make sure that the rx (resp. tx) fast and normal
>> handlers are equivalent.
>>
>> The third one will most likely have an impact on performance which I
>> tried to mitigate with the last one. However, I have no benchmark to
>> back those patches and I did not test those thoroughly, so they are
>> more like RFC patches but sending anyway.
>>
>>
> Hi Chas,
>
> Reminder of this patchset, it is waiting for a long time, if there is no
> objection I am for merging it.

It caused some additional failure in our regression testing but I haven't had time to look at it.


>
> Thanks,
> ferruh
>
Chas Williams June 27, 2019, 12:19 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 6/27/19 4:08 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 4/10/2019 1:53 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>> Another series with focus on the fast/normal rx/tx handlers for 802.3ad.
>>
>> The first two patches make sure that the rx (resp. tx) fast and normal
>> handlers are equivalent.
>>
>> The third one will most likely have an impact on performance which I
>> tried to mitigate with the last one. However, I have no benchmark to
>> back those patches and I did not test those thoroughly, so they are
>> more like RFC patches but sending anyway.
>>
>>
> 
> Hi Chas,
> 
> Reminder of this patchset, it is waiting for a long time, if there is no
> objection I am for merging it.

These patches caused some additional regressions in our local tests. I 
haven't had time to investigate it though.

> 
> Thanks,
> ferruh
>
Ferruh Yigit Aug. 22, 2019, 4:48 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 4/10/2019 1:53 PM, David Marchand wrote:
> Another series with focus on the fast/normal rx/tx handlers for 802.3ad.
> 
> The first two patches make sure that the rx (resp. tx) fast and normal
> handlers are equivalent.
> 
> The third one will most likely have an impact on performance which I
> tried to mitigate with the last one. However, I have no benchmark to
> back those patches and I did not test those thoroughly, so they are
> more like RFC patches but sending anyway.
> 
> 

for series,
Acked-by: Chas Williams <chas3@att.com>

Series applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks.