From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"Wathsala Vithanage" <wathsala.vithanage@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] mbuf: optimize segment prefree
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 14:24:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3d8e07b304524c1b868078cf7cf4c9de@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251020120202.80114-1-mb@smartsharesystems.com>
>
> Refactored rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() for both performance and readability.
>
> With the optimized RTE_MBUF_DIRECT() macro, the common likely code path
> now fits within one instruction cache line on x86-64 when built with GCC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> ---
> v2:
> * Fixed typo in commit description.
> * Fixed indentation.
> * Added detailed description to the optimized RTE_MBUF_DIRECT() macro.
> (Stephen Hemminger)
> * Added static_assert() to verify that the optimized RTE_MBUF_DIRECT()
> macro is valid, specifically that the tested bits are in the MSB of the
> 64-bit field.
> ---
> lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 51 +++++++++++++++-------------------------
> lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> index 3df22125de..2004391f57 100644
> --- a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> +++ b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> * http://www.kohala.com/start/tcpipiv2.html
> */
>
> +#include <stdbool.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
>
> #include <rte_common.h>
> @@ -1458,44 +1459,30 @@ static inline int
> __rte_pktmbuf_pinned_extbuf_decref(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> static __rte_always_inline struct rte_mbuf *
> rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> {
> - __rte_mbuf_sanity_check(m, 0);
> -
> - if (likely(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) == 1)) {
> -
> - if (!RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(m)) {
> - rte_pktmbuf_detach(m);
> - if (RTE_MBUF_HAS_EXTBUF(m) &&
> - RTE_MBUF_HAS_PINNED_EXTBUF(m) &&
> - __rte_pktmbuf_pinned_extbuf_decref(m))
> - return NULL;
> - }
> -
> - if (m->next != NULL)
> - m->next = NULL;
> - if (m->nb_segs != 1)
> - m->nb_segs = 1;
> + bool refcnt_not_one;
>
> - return m;
> + __rte_mbuf_sanity_check(m, 0);
>
> - } else if (__rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1) == 0) {
> + refcnt_not_one = unlikely(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) != 1);
> + if (refcnt_not_one && __rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1) != 0)
> + return NULL;
>
> - if (!RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(m)) {
> - rte_pktmbuf_detach(m);
> - if (RTE_MBUF_HAS_EXTBUF(m) &&
> - RTE_MBUF_HAS_PINNED_EXTBUF(m) &&
> - __rte_pktmbuf_pinned_extbuf_decref(m))
> - return NULL;
> - }
> + if (unlikely(!RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(m))) {
> + rte_pktmbuf_detach(m);
> + if (RTE_MBUF_HAS_EXTBUF(m) &&
> + RTE_MBUF_HAS_PINNED_EXTBUF(m) &&
> + __rte_pktmbuf_pinned_extbuf_decref(m))
> + return NULL;
> + }
>
> - if (m->next != NULL)
> - m->next = NULL;
> - if (m->nb_segs != 1)
> - m->nb_segs = 1;
> + if (refcnt_not_one)
> rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> + if (m->nb_segs != 1)
> + m->nb_segs = 1;
> + if (m->next != NULL)
> + m->next = NULL;
>
> - return m;
> - }
> - return NULL;
> + return m;
> }
>
> /**
> diff --git a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> index a0df265b5d..41f40e1967 100644
> --- a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> +++ b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> @@ -715,6 +715,33 @@ struct rte_mbuf_ext_shared_info {
> #define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) \
> (!((mb)->ol_flags & (RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT |
> RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL)))
>
> +#if defined(RTE_TOOLCHAIN_GCC) && defined(RTE_ARCH_X86)
> +/* Optimization for code size.
> + * GCC only optimizes single-bit MSB tests this way, so we do it by hand with
> multi-bit.
> + *
> + * The flags RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT and RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL are both in
> the MSB of the
> + * 64-bit ol_flags field, so we only compare this one byte instead of all 64 bits.
> + * On little endian architecture, the MSB of a 64-bit integer is at byte offest 7.
> + *
> + * Note: Tested using GCC version 16.0.0 20251019 (experimental).
> + *
> + * Without this optimization, GCC generates 17 bytes of instructions:
> + * movabs rax,0x6000000000000000 // 10 bytes
> + * and rax,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x18] // 4 bytes
> + * sete al // 3 bytes
> + * With this optimization, GCC generates only 7 bytes of instructions:
> + * test BYTE PTR [rdi+0x1f],0x60 // 4 bytes
> + * sete al // 3 bytes
> + */
> +#undef RTE_MBUF_DIRECT
> +#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) \
> + (!(((const uint8_t *)(mb))[offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, ol_flags) + 7] & \
> + (uint8_t)((RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) >> (7 *
> 8))))
> +static_assert(((RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) >> (7 * 8))
> << (7 * 8) ==
> + (RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL),
> + "RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT and/or RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL are not in
> MSB.");
> +#endif
> +
> /** Uninitialized or unspecified port. */
> #define RTE_MBUF_PORT_INVALID UINT16_MAX
> /** For backwards compatibility. */
> --
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
> 2.43.0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-20 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-27 21:35 [PATCH] " Morten Brørup
2025-08-27 23:17 ` Stephen Hemminger
2025-10-06 17:46 ` Wathsala Vithanage
2025-10-06 18:26 ` Morten Brørup
2025-10-06 14:49 ` Morten Brørup
2025-10-20 12:02 ` [PATCH v2] " Morten Brørup
2025-10-20 14:24 ` Konstantin Ananyev [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3d8e07b304524c1b868078cf7cf4c9de@huawei.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=wathsala.vithanage@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).