From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442FC45500; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:48:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3678D42EDA; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:48:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oi1-f177.google.com (mail-oi1-f177.google.com [209.85.167.177]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC5342E95 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:31:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oi1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3d55e963db5so738534b6e.2 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 04:31:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719401486; x=1720006286; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=6ylf0jRIQiny0p4iif8IMT/hXi+NNr9Ic4wez8xRjYY=; b=F9nTy03i3iU4Q2xcxL67EO4qTTfmIIHx38JvEVRhsvDKT+9z6cP6CwQoShB+UFByBf b7uiWB7oazYrmeAynaKKyje4/Qs8KRCPpEILbuOccprqpKurHCcvSgtWiSGn/tB6FHyC vGljxMCfmWEnNqPx0f6K6Fn6RUGp+xdJWpSbSNlLieplUV9NMjuAu30WNeizr2zrJVbX Q7vU5/uz8vIDQKA+3+BTZUKhWogQKr9nCsxk5fIXTWe0oUFAVTM6P1gPJ22DvXx8hW5f DjDT5oR1Q3TeUIJiifCONkjdQN+fbSD/L0AvwWdXOl0oKw4xNSWkN2SKwdghXC7YPasi T9iQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719401486; x=1720006286; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6ylf0jRIQiny0p4iif8IMT/hXi+NNr9Ic4wez8xRjYY=; b=D/rm7ABGfSkQ6GX2l3oAKC/QuURCj6tFa1LHVTZgyofeTSrw1ntestiD/NHjR+VcYV BZPa/pJ0yam4fVD4EJ9shmlvl1/XBT+MziqSd7Sw9cEutP0tsmWvWCQmz1NuKzVbJbDS WWbZTWXK5Eby29g92+tO14VY0/4Y2XYu/4Jn4X6AqpQ7OOAflNIUawXa90e9nuP2I78N nAToL8kskgaPDSAbFgd5cdJNyP2Yy20RBSft4GlFIl87lx8rr+3G8utJQVntEOJn2B19 joX67W5tIFfvGuuCSJfoAXbMVIgISIHevW1abYJO4QtI5md1NMBzhtFO5V+FrhzOiwkq ipHg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUCHV1R9OskQm+S2DeRs5/Ai6k8lACCXoJauz92BQj9fTk20o+Uu5Iw2ukHdfTlLMmaCTh0JVl+zeoou8Y= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzzgK2seEvbVi9aTsS2OCwOAzNw7s6szmO+b4Hxh1HfGPS2rQ7j LfAwK0Ib95Y5PItJ+XzdyDePfvFrNGAVyBmz5iOHVv4dceIHyiHXv4Umkg46b4uyoO2S5bWusPY viFwqWOXm+CIBlWzPvNl7+deFWr4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFIaNcesES93cf9tcm2VyC/oGmOzBmAvdZ8sdRV02W3bjzmvm4Kl72fXhcOGcaV3G9FlgORu+f2lah1IVq8Q+c= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:2109:b0:3d2:4793:9872 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3d543b84f44mr12039398b6e.50.1719401486224; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 04:31:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240325100500.694748-2-rjarry@redhat.com> <20240327091440.1166119-2-rjarry@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 17:00:59 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] graph: expose node context as pointers To: Robin Jarry Cc: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org, Jerin Jacob , Kiran Kumar K , Nithin Dabilpuram , Zhirun Yan , Tyler Retzlaff Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 9:02=E2=80=AFPM Robin Jarry wro= te: > > Sad :( > > > The introduced anonymous structure gets aligned on the minimum cache > > line size (64 bytes): with this change, ctx[] move from offset 256, to > > offset 192. > > Similarly, nodes[] moves from offset 320 to offset 256. > > > > As we discussed offlist, there are a few options to workaround this > > issue (like moving nodes[] inside the anonymous struct though it still > > results in an increased rte_node struct, or like adding an explicit > > padding field right before the newly introduced anonymous struct, > > ...). > [snip] > > For those two reasons, it is better to revisit this patch and have it > > ready for the next release. > > While at it, it may be worth cleaning up the rte_node structure in > > v24.11, if so, please announce in a deprecation notice for this > > planned ABI breakage. > > Jerin, wouldn't it be better if we managed to fill in that 64 bytes > hole? It will be available only for 128B cache line system. So may not make sense= . I think, following change will resolve the issue in your patch. From __extension__ struct __rte_cache_min_aligned { #define RTE_NODE_CTX_SZ 16 To __extension__ struct __rte_cache__aligned { #define RTE_NODE_CTX_SZ 16 > > I don't know what to announce precisely about the breakage nature. >