From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>,
Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@nvidia.com>,
Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] mbuf next field belongs in the first cacheline
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:05:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMilmf0XvQbLmS7d@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C6185B@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:16:27PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> MBUF and MLX5 maintainers,
>
> I'm picking up an old discussion, which you might consider pursuing. Feel free to ignore, if you consider this discussion irrelevant or already closed and done with.
>
> The Techboard has previously discussed the organization of the mbuf fields. Ref: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-November/191859.html
>
> It was concluded that there was no measured performance difference if the "pool" or "next" field was in the first cacheline, so it was decided to put the "pool" field in the first cacheline. And further optimizing the mbuf field organization could be reconsidered later.
>
> I have been looking at it. In theory it should not be required to touch the "pool" field at RX. But the "next" field must be written for segmented packets.
>
Question: are there cases where segmented packets are used, but they aren't
big packets, and so need a high packets-per-second value? The thinking when
designing the mbuf was that any application which could handle high packets
per second for medium/small packets would be fine with a few extra cycles
penalty for big ones, since the overall PPS for the driver would be much
lower.
/Bruce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-15 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-15 12:16 Morten Brørup
2021-06-15 13:05 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2021-06-15 13:40 ` Morten Brørup
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=YMilmf0XvQbLmS7d@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=matan@nvidia.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=shahafs@nvidia.com \
--cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.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).