From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"Verkamp, Daniel" <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170608144540.5a8e3603@platinum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170606145628.GB55760@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:56:28 +0100, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 02:19:21PM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:42 PM
> > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Verkamp, Daniel <daniel.verkamp@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:59:59AM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The PROD/CONS_ALIGN values on x86-64 are set to 2 cache lines, so members
> > > > > > of struct rte_ring are 128 byte aligned,
> > > > > > >and therefore the whole struct needs 128-byte alignment according to the ABI
> > > > > > so that the 128-byte alignment of the fields can be guaranteed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah ok, missed the fact that rte_ring is 128B aligned these days.
> > > > > > BTW, I probably missed the initial discussion, but what was the reason for that?
> > > > > > Konstantin
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know why PROD_ALIGN/CONS_ALIGN use 128 byte alignment; it seems unnecessary if the cache line is only 64 bytes. An
> > > alternate
> > > > > fix would be to just use cache line alignment for these fields (since memzones are already cache line aligned).
> > > >
> > > > Yes, had the same thought.
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe there is some deeper reason for the >= 128-byte alignment logic in rte_ring.h?
> > > >
> > > > Might be, would be good to hear opinion the author of that change.
> > >
> > > It gives improved performance for core-2-core transfer.
> >
> > You mean empty cache-line(s) after prod/cons, correct?
> > That's ok but why we can't keep them and whole rte_ring aligned on cache-line boundaries?
> > Something like that:
> > struct rte_ring {
> > ...
> > struct rte_ring_headtail prod __rte_cache_aligned;
> > EMPTY_CACHE_LINE __rte_cache_aligned;
> > struct rte_ring_headtail cons __rte_cache_aligned;
> > EMPTY_CACHE_LINE __rte_cache_aligned;
> > };
> >
> > Konstantin
>
> Sure. That should probably work too.
>
> /Bruce
I also agree with Konstantin's proposal. One question though: since it
changes the alignment constraint of the rte_ring structure, I think it is
an ABI breakage: a structure including the rte_ring structure inherits
from this constraint.
How could we handle that, knowing this is probably a rare case?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-08 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-02 20:03 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Daniel Verkamp
2017-06-02 20:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Daniel Verkamp
2017-06-02 20:51 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-02 22:24 ` Verkamp, Daniel
2017-06-03 10:00 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-05 16:21 ` Verkamp, Daniel
2017-06-06 9:59 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-06 12:42 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-06 13:19 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-06 14:56 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-08 12:45 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2017-06-08 13:20 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-08 14:05 ` Olivier Matz
2017-06-08 14:11 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-08 14:50 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-08 15:24 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-08 15:35 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-08 16:03 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-08 16:12 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-08 16:20 ` Richardson, Bruce
2017-06-08 16:42 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-09 9:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-12 9:02 ` Olivier Matz
2017-06-12 9:56 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-30 11:35 ` Olivier Matz
2017-06-09 12:47 ` Yerden Zhumabekov
2017-06-09 17:16 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-06-09 17:28 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-10 8:16 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-12 3:07 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-12 10:18 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-12 10:34 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-12 11:09 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-12 11:41 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-12 12:17 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-12 12:42 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-12 12:51 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-06-12 13:06 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-06-12 13:20 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-06-30 11:36 ` Olivier Matz
2017-07-01 11:14 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-01 11:25 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=20170608144540.5a8e3603@platinum \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=daniel.verkamp@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.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).