From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E8B68CD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  5 Dec 2014 18:07:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2014 09:07:46 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,522,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="633346488"
Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.155])
 by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2014 09:07:45 -0800
Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.144]) by
 IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.93]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001;
 Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:07:45 +0000
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't
 override mbuf buffer length
Thread-Index: AQHQEJ8OviAXTJbJGk65klUTfQ/TFJyBOEsAgAABP4A=
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:07:44 +0000
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BD098@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <1417792834-20590-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
 <5481E456.1050001@6wind.com>
In-Reply-To: <5481E456.1050001@6wind.com>
Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't
 override mbuf buffer length
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 17:07:50 -0000



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Mickael Guerin [mailto:jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 4:59 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't =
override mbuf buffer length
>=20
> On 05/12/2014 16:20, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> > That's an alternative way to fix the problem described in the patch:
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009394.html.
> > The main difference is:
> > - move buf_len fields out of rearm_data marker.
> > - make ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec() not touch buf_len field at all
> > (as all other RX functions behave).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h            |  7 +++++--
> >   lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
> >   2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > index 2e5fce5..bb88318 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > @@ -179,6 +179,8 @@ const char *rte_get_tx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t mask);
> >   typedef void    *MARKER[0];   /**< generic marker for a point in a st=
ructure */
> >   typedef uint64_t MARKER64[0]; /**< marker that allows us to overwrite=
 8 bytes
> >                                  * with a single assignment */
> > +typedef uint8_t MARKER8[0];   /**< generic marker with 1B alignment */
> > +
> >   /**
> >    * The generic rte_mbuf, containing a packet mbuf.
> >    */
> > @@ -188,9 +190,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> >   	void *buf_addr;           /**< Virtual address of segment buffer. */
> >   	phys_addr_t buf_physaddr; /**< Physical address of segment buffer. *=
/
> >
> > -	/* next 8 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */
> > -	MARKER64 rearm_data;
> >   	uint16_t buf_len;         /**< Length of segment buffer. */
> > +
> > +	/* next 6 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */
> > +	MARKER8 rearm_data;
> >   	uint16_t data_off;
> >
> >   	/**
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixg=
be/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> > index 579bc46..d5fc0cc 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> > @@ -79,13 +79,22 @@ ixgbe_rxq_rearm(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
> >   	/* Initialize the mbufs in vector, process 2 mbufs in one loop */
> >   	for (i =3D 0; i < RTE_IXGBE_RXQ_REARM_THRESH; i +=3D 2, rxep +=3D 2)=
 {
> >   		__m128i vaddr0, vaddr1;
> > +		uintptr_t p0, p1;
> >
> >   		mb0 =3D rxep[0].mbuf;
> >   		mb1 =3D rxep[1].mbuf;
> >
> > -		/* flush mbuf with pkt template */
> > -		mb0->rearm_data[0] =3D rxq->mbuf_initializer;
> > -		mb1->rearm_data[0] =3D rxq->mbuf_initializer;
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Flush mbuf with pkt template.
> > +		 * Data to be rearmed is 6 bytes long.
> > +		 * Though, RX will overwrite ol_flags that are coming next
> > +		 * anyway. So overwrite whole 8 bytes with one load:
> > +		 * 6 bytes of rearm_data plus first 2 bytes of ol_flags.
> > +		 */
> > +		p0 =3D (uintptr_t)&mb0->rearm_data;
> > +		*(uint64_t *)p0 =3D rxq->mbuf_initializer;
> > +		p1 =3D (uintptr_t)&mb1->rearm_data;
> > +		*(uint64_t *)p1 =3D rxq->mbuf_initializer;
> >
> >   		/* load buf_addr(lo 64bit) and buf_physaddr(hi 64bit) */
> >   		vaddr0 =3D _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&(mb0->buf_addr));
> > @@ -732,14 +741,15 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops =3D {
> >   int
> >   ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
> >   {
> > +	uintptr_t p;
> >   	struct rte_mbuf mb_def =3D { .buf_addr =3D 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */
> >
> >   	mb_def.nb_segs =3D 1;
> >   	mb_def.data_off =3D RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
> > -	mb_def.buf_len =3D rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf);
> >   	mb_def.port =3D rxq->port_id;
> >   	rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1);
> > -	rxq->mbuf_initializer =3D *((uint64_t *)&mb_def.rearm_data);
> > +	p =3D (uintptr_t)&mb_def.rearm_data;
> > +	rxq->mbuf_initializer =3D *(uint64_t *)p;
> >   	return 0;
> >   }
> >
> >
>=20
> The patch introduces writes on unaligned data, but we can assume no
> performance penalty on intel hw, correct?
>=20

Yes to both:
it introduces 64bit unaligned store.
I run performance test on IVB board, didn't see any degradation.
Konstantin=20