From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372643251
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:56:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48])
by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
06 Jun 2017 07:56:31 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,306,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="270831165"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.28])
by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 06 Jun 2017 07:56:29 -0700
Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:56:29 +0100
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:56:28 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: "Verkamp, Daniel" <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20170606145628.GB55760@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20170602200337.50743-1-daniel.verkamp@intel.com>
<20170602201213.51143-1-daniel.verkamp@intel.com>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FB05190@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com>
<A5F28D4A728A7E41839CDC5C3B5A01E87EA1B586@FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FB05216@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com>
<A5F28D4A728A7E41839CDC5C3B5A01E87EA1CBE9@FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FB060FD@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com>
<20170606124201.GA43772@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FB0644D@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FB0644D@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.1 (2017-04-11)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
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: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 14:56:35 -0000
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 02:19:21PM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:42 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > Cc: Verkamp, Daniel <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:59:59AM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The PROD/CONS_ALIGN values on x86-64 are set to 2 cache lines, so members
> > > > > of struct rte_ring are 128 byte aligned,
> > > > > >and therefore the whole struct needs 128-byte alignment according to the ABI
> > > > > so that the 128-byte alignment of the fields can be guaranteed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah ok, missed the fact that rte_ring is 128B aligned these days.
> > > > > BTW, I probably missed the initial discussion, but what was the reason for that?
> > > > > Konstantin
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why PROD_ALIGN/CONS_ALIGN use 128 byte alignment; it seems unnecessary if the cache line is only 64 bytes. An
> > alternate
> > > > fix would be to just use cache line alignment for these fields (since memzones are already cache line aligned).
> > >
> > > Yes, had the same thought.
> > >
> > > > Maybe there is some deeper reason for the >= 128-byte alignment logic in rte_ring.h?
> > >
> > > Might be, would be good to hear opinion the author of that change.
> >
> > It gives improved performance for core-2-core transfer.
>
> You mean empty cache-line(s) after prod/cons, correct?
> That's ok but why we can't keep them and whole rte_ring aligned on cache-line boundaries?
> Something like that:
> struct rte_ring {
> ...
> struct rte_ring_headtail prod __rte_cache_aligned;
> EMPTY_CACHE_LINE __rte_cache_aligned;
> struct rte_ring_headtail cons __rte_cache_aligned;
> EMPTY_CACHE_LINE __rte_cache_aligned;
> };
>
> Konstantin
Sure. That should probably work too.
/Bruce