From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2E92BBD
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 16:05:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id d73so31839336wma.0
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 07:05:30 -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=VgnbEKh5gpvzvlH1Thxw2KE0s8lueT4nSclkLlBupQc=;
b=DPVkL406EuWvYOW4RbfDyBKzZM6SlyaAZ36dNlIXnItMXQUGwTDnmwgVJzjTGicl7T
KhA6ZDgMWi1WIhvrMz9rom+DnXO8RVcFrrPLiEqPhOqbF5qws/zMQBtEmI2KHc1CI43K
zlZExoZPbPCTs9W30Fv2KBxILlvR0XVzfM1Q7qJp8IevaX247BvBGIByIyTvFTb3Y8Bw
N5ld+uoW1NatFHK9a5E+hERZ8/C2L4SbDCLUcnEC54qRXagX9eLeQGQVXhKOpCqV3i8f
St2eosh/hMoByqFOGfBRQoHxER6ehmr37ZwmolabYjWmro2NNLasJv3+XTiedPfK5NJL
93AQ==
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=VgnbEKh5gpvzvlH1Thxw2KE0s8lueT4nSclkLlBupQc=;
b=NwBZ1hKH/E4zoAQJ4+PWDrTEDRgHci6xcmuCc96pa3eXcpvonxcmS1a1LnqSmZQyTb
j13M+M33CCSbJZyOuFw4Gh8/4UOBuSTeLPCFQxWT9m+YdQm3Wq736VF/F9S67NtCXs4l
ooYpun+I+MbAtgKWMm9ADg1MzFSPcbp822xvmwlseXXT59kO34PIFC/Wkgwu+xgybKgB
RFBf487eG9x0vtcuDtNDMhFR5HfcOMBSsLLZtsux0LsJIGOD0xSfW/yDI4lMCsve3xmo
hmLaPfcmrr8qYUJyeSfq3NINyh9LhnMNBKG6Sp9kIKC7Rzt1vBavmMqzqzWLS4HuN3IA
j/ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDIn5lJ3ZlRzZYku+C3jju18M63+rZquA87HmBSrc0k7AWvBgM2
9VtaYHtJWFXoAp+ArtI=
X-Received: by 10.28.95.214 with SMTP id t205mr3893417wmb.90.1496930729665;
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 07:05:29 -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 o24sm5120345wro.21.2017.06.08.07.05.29
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256);
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 07:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 16:05:26 +0200
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "Verkamp, Daniel"
<daniel.verkamp@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20170608160526.7953dd38@platinum>
In-Reply-To: <20170608132052.GA57628@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <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>
<20170606145628.GB55760@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
<20170608144540.5a8e3603@platinum>
<20170608132052.GA57628@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 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: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 14:05:30 -0000
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:20:52 +0100, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 02:45:40PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:56:28 +0100, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> > I also agree with Konstantin's proposal. One question though: since it
> > changes the alignment constraint of the rte_ring structure, I think it is
> > an ABI breakage: a structure including the rte_ring structure inherits
> > from this constraint.
> >
> > How could we handle that, knowing this is probably a rare case?
> >
> >
> Is it an ABI break so long as we keep the resulting size and field
> placement of the structures the same? The alignment being reduced should
> not be a problem, as 128byte alignment is also valid as 64byte
> alignment, after all.
I'd say yes. Consider the following example:
---8<---
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define ALIGN 64
/* #define ALIGN 128 */
/* dummy rte_ring struct */
struct rte_ring {
char x[128];
} __attribute__((aligned(ALIGN)));
struct foo {
struct rte_ring r;
unsigned bar;
};
int main(void)
{
struct foo array[2];
printf("sizeof(ring)=%zu diff=%u\n",
sizeof(struct rte_ring),
(unsigned int)((char *)&array[1].r - (char *)array));
return 0;
}
---8<---
The size of rte_ring is always 128.
diff is 192 or 256, depending on the value of ALIGN.
Olivier