HWP | Helical wheel projection with variability vector | Animation library

-march native means -march $MY_HARDWARE. We have no idea what hardware you have. For you, that would be -march=skylake-avx512 (SkyLake SP) The results could be reproduced by specifying your hardware architecture explicitly.

It's quite possible that the errors will decrease with more modern instructions, specifically Fused-Multiply-and-Add (FMA). This is the operation a*b+c, but rounded once instead of twice. That saves one rounding error.

I don't have an answer yet but here's his code running if anyone wants to try it. It seems like the code is filtering correctly based on the filter logic.

• It includes items that start before the defined start date and end date after the defined end date. (outside)

• It includes items that start and end are between the defined start and defined end date (inside)

• It includes items that start after the defined start date but before the defined end date. (start within)

The original data source needed a little cleanup and I am not sure if "Start Date " (with the space at the end) was a typo. I treated it as such. The way this filter is set up is to exclude items that are in range. Cheers

There are plenty of reasons why a code can be slower with -march=native, although this is quite exceptional.

That being said, in your specific context, one possible scenario is the use of slower SIMD instructions, or more precisely different SIMD instructions finally making the program slower. Indeed, GCC vectorize loops with -O3 using the SSE instruction set on x86 processors such as yours (for backward compatibility). With -march=native, GCC will likely vectorize loops using the more advanced and more recent AVX instruction set (supported by your processor but not on many old x86 processors). While the use of AVX instruction should speed your program up, it is not always the case in few pathological cases (less efficient code generated by compiler heuristics, loops are too small to leverage AVX instructions, missing/slower AVX instructions available in SSE, alignment, transition penality, energy/frequency impact, etc.).

My guess is your program is memory bound and thus AVX instructions do not make your program faster.

You can confirm this hypothesis by enabling AVX manually using -mavx -mavx2 rather than -march=native and look if your performance issue is still there. I advise you to carefully benchmark your application using a tool like perf.

DPDK API rte_ipv4_frag_reassemble_packet returns NULL in 2 ocassion

1. an error occurred
2. not all fragments of the packet are collected yet

Based on the code and logs shared it looks like you are

1. sending the last fragment multiple times.
2. setting time out as cur_tsc

Note:

• the easiest way to test your packet is run it against ip_reassembly example and cross check the variance.
• if (mo == NULL) it only means not sufficient fragments are received.

[edit-1] Hence I request to model your code as dpdk example ip_reassembly since assuming rte_ipv4_frag_reassemble_packet returning NULL is not always a failure.

[edit-2] cleaning up the code and adding missing libraries I am able to get this working with right set of fragment packets

Here's an approach with do.call:

I manage to find a solution.

In my case, the virtual machines are managed by PROXMOX. I had to add the following line in the VM configuration file:

(current cpython implementation details)

on linux platforms, the lookup for platform.processor subprocesses to uname -p -- so whatever result you're getting from uname will be there:

https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/dd18001c308fb3bb65006c91d95f6639583a3420/Lib/platform.py#L758-L769

in your case, uname -p is probably returning the empty string for whatever reason

note that cpuinfo (essentially a parse of /proc/cpuinfo) is unrelated to platform.processor() which is the information reported by the platform

you might be looking for platform.architecture() which is much more reliable way to retrieve the processor architecture

or if cpuinfo.get_cpu_info() contains the information you're looking for, why not use that?

or if you don't want an additional dependency, parse /proc/cpuinfo (though that's not portable to non-linuxes)

The code still calls three separate messageboxes on three separate strings.

You could do this: