From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ring: relax alignment constraint on ring structure
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:15:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2566410.P8rg2qFdWC@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180406012624.GA12155@jerin>
> > > > > > > > > > The initial objective of
> > > > > > > > > > commit d9f0d3a1ffd4 ("ring: remove split cacheline build setting")
> > > > > > > > > > was to add an empty cache line betwee, the producer and consumer
> > > > > > > > > > data (on platform with cache line size = 64B), preventing from
> > > > > > > > > > having them on adjacent cache lines.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Following discussion on the mailing list, it appears that this
> > > > > > > > > > also imposes an alignment constraint that is not required.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This patch removes the extra alignment constraint and adds the
> > > > > > > > > > empty cache lines using padding fields in the structure. The
> > > > > > > > > > size of rte_ring structure and the offset of the fields remain
> > > > > > > > > > the same on platforms with cache line size = 64B:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring = 384
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.name = 0
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.flags = 32
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.memzone = 40
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.size = 48
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.mask = 52
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.prod = 128
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.cons = 256
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But it has an impact on platform where cache line size is 128B:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring = 384 -> 768
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.name = 0
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.flags = 32
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.memzone = 40
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.size = 48
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.mask = 52
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.prod = 128 -> 256
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.cons = 256 -> 512
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are we leaving TWO cacheline to make sure, HW prefetch don't load
> > > > > > > > > the adjust cacheline(consumer)?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If so, Will it have impact on those machine where it is 128B Cache line
> > > > > > > > > and the HW prefetcher is not loading the next caching explicitly. Right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The impact on machines that have a 128B cache line is that an unused
> > > > > > > > cache line will be added between the producer and consumer data. I
> > > > > > > > expect that the impact is positive in case there is a hw prefetcher, and
> > > > > > > > null in case there is no such prefetcher.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is not NULL, Right? You are loosing 256B for each ring.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it really that important?
> > > > >
> > > > > Pipeline or eventdev SW cases there could more rings in the system.
> > > > > I don't see any downside of having config option which is enabled
> > > > > default.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my view, such config options are good, as in embedded usecases, customers
> > > > > can really fine tune the target for the need. In server usecases, let the default
> > > > > of option be enabled, no harm.
> > > >
> > > > But that would mean we have to maintain two layouts for the rte_ring structure.
> > >
> > > Is there any downside of having two configurable layout? meaning, we are not
> > > transferring rte_ring structure over network etc(ie no interoperability
> > > issue). Does it really matter? May I am missing something here.
> >
> > My concern about potential compatibility problems we are introducing -
> > library build with 'y', while app wit 'n', or visa-versa.
>
> Got it.
>
> > I wonder are there really a lot of users who would be interested in such savings?
> > Could it happen that this new option would sit here unused and untested?
>
> OK. Fair enough. I have no objections for Olivier patch.
Applied, thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-17 22:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-30 14:26 [dpdk-dev] [RFC] " Olivier Matz
2017-07-20 8:52 ` Olivier Matz
2018-04-03 13:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Olivier Matz
2018-04-03 15:07 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-04-03 15:25 ` Olivier Matz
2018-04-03 15:37 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-04-03 15:56 ` Olivier Matz
2018-04-03 16:42 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-04-04 23:38 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-04-05 8:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-04-05 13:49 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-04-06 1:26 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-04-11 0:33 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-04-11 2:48 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-04-11 8:40 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-04-17 22:15 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2018-05-25 10:59 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-05-25 12:18 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-05-25 14:57 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-05-25 15:17 ` Olivier Matz
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=2566410.P8rg2qFdWC@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.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).