From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865FA5917 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 14 May 2014 16:10:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 May 2014 07:07:15 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1052,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="538946360" Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 May 2014 07:07:15 -0700 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.70]) by IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 14 May 2014 15:07:10 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> To: "Shaw, Jeffrey B" <jeffrey.b.shaw@intel.com>, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield Thread-Index: AQHPa5Y6oEhAQPHLmkuZVbv+E7VQLJs4YDOg///5CICAAAGkgIAHxulw Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 14:07:10 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580EFA666D@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1399647038-15095-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1399647038-15095-6-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <4032A54B6BB5F04B8C08B6CFF08C59285542081E@FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> <536CFCEF.4080704@6wind.com> <4032A54B6BB5F04B8C08B6CFF08C59285542085B@FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4032A54B6BB5F04B8C08B6CFF08C59285542085B@FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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: Wed, 14 May 2014 14:10:27 -0000 Hi Oliver, Apart from performance impact, one more concern: As I know, theoretical limit for PA on Intel is 52 bits. I understand that these days no-one using more than 48 bits and it probably= would stay like that for next few years. Though if we'll occupy these (MAXPHYADDR - 48) bits now, it can become a po= tential problem in future. After all the savings from that changes are not that big - only 2 bytes. =20 As I understand you already save extra 7 bytes with other proposed modifica= tions of mbuf. That's enough to add TSO related information into the mbuf. So my suggestion would be to keep phys_addr 64bit long. Thanks Konstantin =20 -----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shaw, Jeffrey B Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 5:12 PM To: Olivier MATZ; dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len = in a bitfield I agree, we should wait for comments then test the performance when the pat= ches have settled. -----Original Message----- From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]=20 Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 9:06 AM To: Shaw, Jeffrey B; dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len = in a bitfield Hi Jeff, Thank you for your comment. On 05/09/2014 05:39 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B wrote: > have you tested this patch to see if there is a negative impact to=20 > performance? Yes, but not with testpmd. I passed our internal non-regression performance= tests and it shows no difference (or below the error margin), even with lo= w overhead processing like forwarding whatever the number of cores I use. > Wouldn't the processor have to mask the high bytes of the physical=20 > address when it is used, for example, to populate descriptors with=20 > buffer addresses? When compute bound, this could steal CPU cycles=20 > away from packet processing. I think we should understand the=20 > performance trade-off in order to save these 2 bytes. I would naively say that the cost is negligible: accessing to the length is= the same as before (it's a 16 bits field) and accessing the physical addre= ss is just a mask or a shift, which should not be very long on an Intel pro= cessor (1 cycle?). This is to be compared with the number of cycles per pac= ket in io-fwd mode, which is probably around 150 or 200. > It would be interesting to see how throughput is impacted when the=20 > workload is core-bound. This could be accomplished by running testpmd=20 > in io-fwd mode across 4x 10G ports. I agree, this is something we could check. If you agree, let's first wait f= or some other comments and see if we find a consensus on the patches. Regards, Olivier