From: Tal Shnaiderman <talshn@mellanox.com>
To: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"pallavi.kadam@intel.com" <pallavi.kadam@intel.com>,
"navasile@linux.microsoft.com" <navasile@linux.microsoft.com>,
"ranjit.menon@intel.com" <ranjit.menon@intel.com>,
"harini.ramakrishnan@microsoft.com"
<harini.ramakrishnan@microsoft.com>,
"ocardona@microsoft.com" <ocardona@microsoft.com>,
"Dmitry Malloy (MESHCHANINOV)" <dmitrym@microsoft.com>,
Yohad Tor <yohadt@mellanox.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf structure size in Windows
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 07:55:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM0PR05MB531389D7D1BB4F07096F1DF5A9BF0@AM0PR05MB5313.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
Hi,
I've noticed that there is a difference between the size of rte_mbuf in a Unix build comparing to Windows.
The requirements is for rte_mbuf is to be RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE * 2 bytes however when I'm building it in Windows the size is RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE * 3.
Looks like the diff results from the usage of bit fields inside rte_mbuf, from my testing it looks to me like the usage of 2 different bit fielded types inside rte_mbuf causes additional padding in Windows.
For example from rte_mbuf, the following unions have the same size in Windows and Linux:
union {
uint32_t packet_type;
// bit fields of type uint32_t will follow
...
};...
4 bytes both in Unix and Windows.
union {
uint64_t tx_offload;
// bit fields of type uint64_t will follow
...
};
8 bytes both in Unix and Windows.
However when creating a struct containing both unions I'm getting sizeof 16 bytes in Unix and 24 bytes in Windows.
Did someone faced this issue before? Is this a result of different alignment between gcc and clang when bit fields are used?
Thanks,
Tal
next reply other threads:[~2020-05-13 7:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-13 7:55 Tal Shnaiderman [this message]
2020-05-13 8:04 ` Omar Cardona
2020-05-13 8:07 ` Omar Cardona
2020-05-13 8:50 ` Tal Shnaiderman
2020-05-13 8:35 ` Dmitry Kozlyuk
2020-05-13 8:55 ` Tal Shnaiderman
2020-05-13 9:34 ` Dmitry Kozlyuk
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=AM0PR05MB531389D7D1BB4F07096F1DF5A9BF0@AM0PR05MB5313.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com \
--to=talshn@mellanox.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com \
--cc=dmitrym@microsoft.com \
--cc=harini.ramakrishnan@microsoft.com \
--cc=navasile@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=ocardona@microsoft.com \
--cc=pallavi.kadam@intel.com \
--cc=ranjit.menon@intel.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=yohadt@mellanox.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).