From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD8D2C18
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:56:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id r190so41925228wme.1
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=rjzpCkvE5eF5/NfZdRP52sxnw6ngJRQkf9Pw9Yb/AsM=;
b=fGhOQGlIu5yaBFEuPkYyeJOypMtlDfpMwtS5CGw503V2nTty1VybFwyKRkkM3VLgtX
pcm0uDJBXiUeK5cWyr2NAelcoxuIKbqkpPyKJz9HBN1qVYUYdjr/oC1VNqe3SlftcAlH
7GX7Xr04zPjn1ElVNjOKkIUW7VFYPwvtyoCB4OwTAsNC+7BQ3FNWzKtahIjsTPCU1VeQ
CGBCAIs+HXhwxeQZEUtyoUIL9PYtsNh2/wjIPjbOsbe4mpOhmyl00WbIHfrk9puZ1+hZ
IJ5wgxBcYMXcc0OQg05GNyzaVWDsM55zKcbUrnWsWjA0UXZBLFEfvV/W51iutAHX/a2+
VIfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=rjzpCkvE5eF5/NfZdRP52sxnw6ngJRQkf9Pw9Yb/AsM=;
b=hEVFNQ0167jzYxYRBtFkyzWVt583jogIswt0+m3QhQJuPvxy/0WN6+HB1OJVabmK5M
+0/jMPylABnUvu3b4EsfnYjWxRHYHe7R4JYT7fQveHRkoQcpIsiOW3ebcGwE3tmjyVcR
mqiWnVIwG2DJYvrEnW6VhOlQJQ05PCaNXPwm5Oiplhe/0Hnu14ggr57pVE6KB2gmLfnT
EJrhyS5tCzqCnVkstr/jevwQOk5/eXKVfF60JbZVAacPUlZYzYhBqfipsyVICzpBn2uU
/lO7+F1pfxyzAkwe80e9ia8+oFO3uwo0yS3JL2E0mGyRPKlhd3jXCm8vEkdWB6mYqlsL
636g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7RzHQb6N4DHvXGnJPlji4mfk0xrUS6k6nOYQOjh6lCYwS0S4CK
FUJ9PgI6mgyhejl0
X-Received: by 10.28.144.1 with SMTP id s1mr4918963wmd.27.1493373416340;
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from platinum (2a01cb0c03c651000226b0fffeed02fc.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr.
[2a01:cb0c:3c6:5100:226:b0ff:feed:2fc])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z14sm1970219wmz.2.2017.04.28.02.56.56
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256);
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:56:54 +0200
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, dev@dpdk.org
Message-ID: <20170428115654.58f14b0d@platinum>
In-Reply-To: <20170428093202.GB14648@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20170428081551.28954-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
<1797441.atIi8ZZIaG@xps>
<20170428090306.GA25692@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
<2039188.oPr2FiSFIW@xps>
<20170428093202.GB14648@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix 64bit address alignment in 32-bit
builds
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:56:56 -0000
Hi,
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:32:03 +0100, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 28/04/2017 11:03, Bruce Richardson:
> > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:56:56AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 28/04/2017 10:15, Bruce Richardson:
> > > > > On i686 builds, the uint64_t type is 64-bits in size but is aligned to
> > > > > 32-bits only. This causes mbuf fields for rearm_data to not be 16-byte
> > > > > aligned on 32-bit builds, which causes errors with some vector PMDs which
> > > > > expect the rearm data to be aligned as on 64-bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that we cannot use the extra space in the data structures anyway, as
> > > > > it's already used on 64-bit builds, we can just force alignment of physical
> > > > > address structure members to 8-bytes in all cases. This has no effect on
> > > > > 64-bit systems, but fixes the updated PMDs on 32-bit.
> > > >
> > > > I agree to align on 64-bit in mbuf.
> > > >
> > > > > Fixes: f4356d7ca168 ("net/i40e: eliminate mbuf write on rearm")
> > > > > Fixes: f160666a1073 ("net/ixgbe: eliminate mbuf write on rearm")
> > > > [...]
> > > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h
> > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h
> > > > > -typedef uint64_t phys_addr_t; /**< Physical address definition. */
> > > > > +/** Physical address definition. */
> > > > > +typedef uint64_t phys_addr_t __rte_aligned(sizeof(uint64_t));
> > > >
> > > > Why setting this constraint for everyone?
> > > >
> > > Well, it only has an effect on 32-bit builds, and unless there is a
> > > problem, I don't see why not always align them to the extra 8 bytes. If
> > > this does cause an issue, I'm happy enough to use #ifdefs, but in the
> > > absense of a confirmed problem, I'd rather keep the code clean.
> >
> > Is it expected for everyone to have every physical addresses aligned on 64?
> > I think it can be weird for some applications.
> > Why do you think it is cleaner than adding the alignment to the mbuf fields?
> >
> I'm ok to redo the patch to only make the change to the mbuf value.
> However, when researching this, I discovered that gcc apparently already
> aligns all non-structure-member uint64_t values on an 8-byte boundary on
> 32-bit x86 anyway*. [Don't know if this also applies e.g. to 32-bit arm,
> but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.] That means the scope of this
> only applies to structures with phys_addr values, so it's not a huge
> scope.
> *Ref: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-06/msg00333.html
>
> > PS: It is yet another macro which is not rte_ prefixed.
> >
> Yes. Not going to fix that in this patch though!
>
> So, do you want a V2 to limit the alignment change to the phys_addr in
> the mbuf, rather than generally to physical addresses? I prefer the way
> I have it here, but I'm ok to change.
Since the need comes from vector pmd, I think it's better to limit
the alignment in the mbuf.
Also, it would be good to progressively add some compile-time BUG_ON() in
vector PMDs that have some hidden field alignment/ordering constraints.
Olivier