From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DDDA6AAE for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:03:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l18so1546044wgh.30 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:03:08 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NpsgNTXn6E3sOl9f5g1/OXeKz0cLSBXyef6X0x5fH3E=; b=cAFtgIfJ3z5VJCJ2PwwXBK+NgnI1lbj61SPS77V+sTzClr4NNFc9RmvrNgNJQp7KGE 4Q1m0/9drN7Wcyi717xMvOfRzoWQPtmByy8cJx2wyk1NVRHLqcr0vh6UVV4t0lCHoHt5 by3cMHCnequqwlKFY8RvQlTFjqLn7WpuGoKD+LD3iWsk5fDmFU11QtWReixRkIrU3vqL yJQj69U53TKV10GFyIh2dgQrqd3OmRJvxFi9ecSdx2wSLfzBk+vtAdVzoB4RdTTGCgK6 0abwExrQEybS5SYD7aBqPFCzmJPUpFLZ7JYAHppcMIRHpqRYkM1Jehr24fLLDdKW5ia9 +k0g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkLxl1bYsWGqKal2IPDgXRt9aXHq8ZEnzlqSBk5OBxoWFRhJHHINLvQvwxjv1A7S4wF8w+ X-Received: by 10.180.73.7 with SMTP id h7mr5902405wiv.83.1417802588847; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.8] (crb44-1-82-67-127-5.fbx.proxad.net. [82.67.127.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fq1sm3154995wib.12.2014.12.05.10.03.08 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:03:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5481F359.40007@6wind.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:03:05 +0100 From: Jean-Mickael Guerin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" References: <1417792834-20590-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> <5481E456.1050001@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BD098@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BD098@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:03:09 -0000 On 05/12/2014 18:07, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >> -----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 >> >> 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 >>> --- >>> 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 structure */ >>> 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_ixgbe/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 = 0; i < RTE_IXGBE_RXQ_REARM_THRESH; i += 2, rxep += 2) { >>> __m128i vaddr0, vaddr1; >>> + uintptr_t p0, p1; >>> >>> mb0 = rxep[0].mbuf; >>> mb1 = rxep[1].mbuf; >>> >>> - /* flush mbuf with pkt template */ >>> - mb0->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer; >>> - mb1->rearm_data[0] = 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 = (uintptr_t)&mb0->rearm_data; >>> + *(uint64_t *)p0 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; >>> + p1 = (uintptr_t)&mb1->rearm_data; >>> + *(uint64_t *)p1 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; >>> >>> /* load buf_addr(lo 64bit) and buf_physaddr(hi 64bit) */ >>> vaddr0 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&(mb0->buf_addr)); >>> @@ -732,14 +741,15 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops = { >>> int >>> ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) >>> { >>> + uintptr_t p; >>> struct rte_mbuf mb_def = { .buf_addr = 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */ >>> >>> mb_def.nb_segs = 1; >>> mb_def.data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM; >>> - mb_def.buf_len = rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf); >>> mb_def.port = rxq->port_id; >>> rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1); >>> - rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def.rearm_data); >>> + p = (uintptr_t)&mb_def.rearm_data; >>> + rxq->mbuf_initializer = *(uint64_t *)p; >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> >> >> The patch introduces writes on unaligned data, but we can assume no >> performance penalty on intel hw, correct? >> > > Yes to both: > it introduces 64bit unaligned store. > I run performance test on IVB board, didn't see any degradation. > Konstantin > > OK fine by me: Acked-by: Jean-Mickael Guerin