From: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v11] net: optimize raw checksum computation
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 10:26:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35F65638@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260108230509.6541-1-scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>
> Changes in v8:
> - __rte_raw_cksum: use native pointer arithmetic instead of RTE_PTR_ADD
> to avoid incorrect results with -O3 for UDP checksums. Also improves
> performance due to less assembly generated with Clang.
Personally, I also have observed GCC's optimizer behave as if it loses some contextual information when using RTE_PTR_ADD, and thus emitting less optimal code.
I didn't look further into it, and thus have no data or examples to back up the claim. Which is why I haven't started a discussion about discouraging the use of RTE_PTR_ADD.
In other words: I support this change.
> /* if length is odd, keeping it byte order independent */
> - if (unlikely(len % 2)) {
> + if (len & 1) {
> uint16_t left = 0;
> -
> memcpy(&left, end, 1);
> sum += left;
> }
Changing "len % 2" to "len & 1" made sense for consistency in previous versions handling 32/16/8/4/2-byte chunks before this 1-byte chunk; now it makes no difference, so consider not changing this part at all.
Under all circumstances, don't remove the unlikely() for handling odd length in __rte_raw_cksum(). The vast majority of packets (and partial packets, e.g. headers) being checksummed are even length.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-09 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-08 23:05 scott.k.mitch1
2026-01-09 0:44 ` Scott Mitchell
2026-01-09 9:26 ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2026-01-09 15:27 ` Scott Mitchell
2026-01-09 15:58 ` Morten Brørup
2026-01-09 17:23 ` Scott Mitchell
2026-01-09 22:12 ` Morten Brørup
2026-01-10 4:19 ` Scott Mitchell
2026-01-09 18:28 ` Morten Brørup
2026-01-10 3:41 ` Scott Mitchell
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=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35F65638@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
--to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/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).