[0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64

  Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform.
An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed.
Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics.
Both of the changes will help to improve performance.

Ruifeng Wang (2):
  net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64
  net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64

 drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32 ++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
  

Hi, 

Thanks for the patches, could you also provide the Fixes tag and cc stable?
The patchset looks good to me.

Thanks,
Xiaolong

On 08/13, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
>Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform.
>An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed.
>Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics.
>Both of the changes will help to improve performance.
>
>Ruifeng Wang (2):
>  net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64
>  net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64
>
> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32 ++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
>-- 
>2.17.1
>
  

Hi Xiaolong,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 09:34
> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the patches, could you also provide the Fixes tag and cc stable?
> The patchset looks good to me.

Code changes in both patches are not for bug fixing.
Patch 1/2 includes fix for code comments. I don't think it deserves a Fixes tag or backporting. Can we skip the Fixes tag?

> 
> Thanks,
> Xiaolong
> 
> On 08/13, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
> >Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform.
> >An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed.
> >Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics.
> >Both of the changes will help to improve performance.
> >
> >Ruifeng Wang (2):
> >  net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64
> >  net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64
> >
> > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32 ++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> >--
> >2.17.1
> >
  

On 8/26/2019 3:52 AM, Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> Hi Xiaolong,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 09:34
>> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
>> Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
>> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
>> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the patches, could you also provide the Fixes tag and cc stable?
>> The patchset looks good to me.
> 
> Code changes in both patches are not for bug fixing.
> Patch 1/2 includes fix for code comments. I don't think it deserves a Fixes tag or backporting. Can we skip the Fixes tag?

In 1/2 a memory barrier is removed, it means it was wrong to add it at first
place and you are fixing it, no?


Performance improvements are in gray are, but if there is no ABI/API break why
not take is performance fix and backport and have the performance improvement in
LTS?
Also I think taking as much as possible may help to maintain LTS, since it
reduces the chance of conflict in later commits, LTS is two years and these
small things can accumulate and make getting important fixes hard by time.

Is there any specific reason not to backport these patches to LTS releases?


> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xiaolong
>>
>> On 08/13, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
>>> Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform.
>>> An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed.
>>> Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics.
>>> Both of the changes will help to improve performance.
>>>
>>> Ruifeng Wang (2):
>>>  net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64
>>>  net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64
>>>
>>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32 ++++++++++++-------------
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> 2.17.1
>>>
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 18:40
> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; Ye
> Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
> Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; Kevin Traynor
> <ktraynor@redhat.com>; Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64
> 
> On 8/26/2019 3:52 AM, Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> > Hi Xiaolong,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 09:34
> >> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> >> Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
> >> <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> >> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] IXGBE vPMD changes for aarch64
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the patches, could you also provide the Fixes tag and cc stable?
> >> The patchset looks good to me.
> >
> > Code changes in both patches are not for bug fixing.
> > Patch 1/2 includes fix for code comments. I don't think it deserves a Fixes
> tag or backporting. Can we skip the Fixes tag?
> 
> In 1/2 a memory barrier is removed, it means it was wrong to add it at first
> place and you are fixing it, no?
> 
> 
> Performance improvements are in gray are, but if there is no ABI/API break
> why not take is performance fix and backport and have the performance
> improvement in LTS?
> Also I think taking as much as possible may help to maintain LTS, since it
> reduces the chance of conflict in later commits, LTS is two years and these
> small things can accumulate and make getting important fixes hard by time.
> 
> Is there any specific reason not to backport these patches to LTS releases?
> 
Thanks for your explanation.
Understand that. No objection to backporting.
I'll send out new version.

> 
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Xiaolong
> >>
> >> On 08/13, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
> >>> Couple of changes to IXGBE vector PMD on aarch64 platform.
> >>> An unnecessary memory barrier was identified and removed.
> >>> Also part of processing was replaced with NEON intrinsics.
> >>> Both of the changes will help to improve performance.
> >>>
> >>> Ruifeng Wang (2):
> >>>  net/ixgbe: remove barrier in vPMD for aarch64
> >>>  net/ixgbe: use neon intrinsics to count packet for aarch64
> >>>
> >>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec_neon.c | 32
> >>> ++++++++++++-------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 2.17.1
> >>>