From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf:rearrange mbuf to be more mbuf chain friendly
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:05:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1706546.bAg9N1Gdxd@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5770E365.4060703@6wind.com>
2016-06-27 10:27, Olivier Matz:
> On 06/27/2016 10:21 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Keith Wiles
> >> Move the next pointer to the first cacheline of the rte_mbuf structure
> >> and move the offload values to the second cacheline to give better
> >> performance to applications using chained mbufs.
> >>
> >> Enabled by a configuration option CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_CHAIN_FRIENDLY default
> >> is set to No.
> >
> > First, it would make ixgbe and i40e vector RX functions to work incorrectly.
> > Second, I don't think we can afford to allow people swap mbuf fields in the way they like.
> > Otherwise we'll end-up with totally unmaintainable code pretty soon.
> > So NACK.
>
> +1
To be more precise, the arrangement of fields in rte_mbuf is open
to debate and changes.
There is a recent discussion here:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-May/039483.html
I think we must try to improve few things in mbuf during the 16.11 cycle.
But it must not be allowed to have a build option to adapt this structure
or any other API. There is only one DPDK API for a given version.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-27 9:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-25 15:29 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Keith Wiles
2016-06-25 15:48 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-06-25 15:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Keith Wiles
2016-06-27 8:21 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-27 8:27 ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-27 9:05 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2016-06-27 13:06 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-06-27 14:30 ` 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=1706546.bAg9N1Gdxd@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.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).