From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, "viktorin@rehivetech.com" <viktorin@rehivetech.com>,
"jianbo.liu@linaro.org" <jianbo.liu@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: make rearm_data address naturally aligned
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 13:19:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5742E752.3090207@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9650772.iYDeGtr74X@xps13>
Hi,
On 05/19/2016 05:50 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-05-19 19:05, Jerin Jacob:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:18:57PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:20:16AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:43:00PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 07:27:43PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
>>> I wonder does anyone really use mbuf port field?
>>> My though was - could we to drop it completely?
>>> Actually, after discussing it with Bruce offline, an interesting idea came out:
>>> if we'll drop port and make mbuf_prefree() to reset nb_segs=1, then
>>> we can reduce RX rearm_data to 4B. So with that layout:
>>>
>>> struct rte_mbuf {
>>>
>>> MARKER cacheline0;
>>>
>>> void *buf_addr;
>>> phys_addr_t buf_physaddr;
>>> uint16_t buf_len;
>>> uint8_t nb_segs;
>>> uint8_t reserved_1byte; /* former port */
>>>
>>> MARKER32 rearm_data;
>>> uint16_t data_off;
>>> uint16_t refcnt;
>>>
>>> uint64_t ol_flags;
>>> ...
>>>
>>> We can keep buf_len at its place and avoid 2B gap, while making rearm_data
>>> 4B long and 4B aligned.
>>
>> Couple of comments,
>> - IMO, It is good if nb_segs can move under rearm_data, as some
>> drivers(not in ixgbe may be) can write nb_segs in one shot also
>> in segmented rx handler case
>> - I think, it makes sense to keep port in mbuf so that application
>> can make use of it(Not sure what real application developers think of
>> this)
>
> I agree we could try to remove the port id from mbuf.
> These mbuf data are a common base to pass infos between drivers and apps.
> If you need to store some data which are read and write from the app only,
> you can have use the private zone (see rte_pktmbuf_priv_size).
At the first read, I was in favor of keeping the port_id in the
mbuf. But after checking the examples and applications, I'm not
opposed to remove it. Indeed, this information could go in an
application-specific part or it could be an additional function
parameter in the application processing function.
The same question could be raised for nb_seg: it seems this info
is not used a lot, and having a 8 bits value here also prevents from
having long chains (ex: for socket buffer in a tcp stack).
Just an idea thrown in the air: if these 2 fields are removed, it
brings some room for the m->next field to go in the first cache line.
This was mentioned several times (at least [1]).
[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-June/019182.html
By the way, the "pahole" utility gives a nice representation
of structures with the field sizes and offsets. Example on the
current rte_mbuf structure on x86_64:
$ make config T=x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc
$ make -j4 EXTRA_CFLAGS="-O -g"
$ pahole -C rte_mbuf build/app/testpmd
struct rte_mbuf {
MARKER cacheline0; /* 0 0 */
void * buf_addr; /* 0 8 */
phys_addr_t buf_physaddr; /* 8 8 */
uint16_t buf_len; /* 16 2 */
MARKER8 rearm_data; /* 18 0 */
uint16_t data_off; /* 18 2 */
union {
rte_atomic16_t refcnt_atomic; /* 2 */
uint16_t refcnt; /* 2 */
}; /* 20 2 */
uint8_t nb_segs; /* 22 1 */
uint8_t port; /* 23 1 */
uint64_t ol_flags; /* 24 8 */
MARKER rx_descriptor_fields1; /* 32 0 */
union {
uint32_t packet_type; /* 4 */
struct {
uint32_t l2_type:4; /* 32:28 4 */
uint32_t l3_type:4; /* 32:24 4 */
uint32_t l4_type:4; /* 32:20 4 */
uint32_t tun_type:4; /* 32:16 4 */
uint32_t inner_l2_type:4; /* 32:12 4 */
uint32_t inner_l3_type:4; /* 32: 8 4 */
uint32_t inner_l4_type:4; /* 32: 4 4 */
}; /* 4 */
}; /* 32 4 */
uint32_t pkt_len; /* 36 4 */
uint16_t data_len; /* 40 2 */
uint16_t vlan_tci; /* 42 2 */
union {
uint32_t rss; /* 4 */
struct {
union {
struct {
uint16_t hash; /* 44 2 */
uint16_t id; /* 46 2 */
}; /* 4 */
uint32_t lo; /* 4 */
}; /* 44 4 */
uint32_t hi; /* 48 4 */
} fdir; /* 8 */
struct {
uint32_t lo; /* 44 4 */
uint32_t hi; /* 48 4 */
} sched; /* 8 */
uint32_t usr; /* 4 */
} hash; /* 44 8 */
uint32_t seqn; /* 52 4 */
uint16_t vlan_tci_outer; /* 56 2 */
/* XXX 6 bytes hole, try to pack */
/* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) --- */
MARKER cacheline1; /* 64 0 */
union {
void * userdata; /* 8 */
uint64_t udata64; /* 8 */
}; /* 64 8 */
struct rte_mempool * pool; /* 72 8 */
struct rte_mbuf * next; /* 80 8 */
union {
uint64_t tx_offload; /* 8 */
struct {
uint64_t l2_len:7; /* 88:57 8 */
uint64_t l3_len:9; /* 88:48 8 */
uint64_t l4_len:8; /* 88:40 8 */
uint64_t tso_segsz:16; /* 88:24 8 */
uint64_t outer_l3_len:9; /* 88:15 8 */
uint64_t outer_l2_len:7; /* 88: 8 8 */
}; /* 8 */
}; /* 88 8 */
uint16_t priv_size; /* 96 2 */
uint16_t timesync; /* 98 2 */
/* size: 128, cachelines: 2, members: 25 */
/* sum members: 94, holes: 1, sum holes: 6 */
/* padding: 28 */
};
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-23 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-18 13:57 Jerin Jacob
2016-05-18 16:43 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-05-18 18:50 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-05-19 8:50 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-05-19 11:54 ` Jan Viktorin
2016-05-19 12:18 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-19 13:35 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-05-19 15:50 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-05-23 11:19 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2016-07-04 12:45 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-07-04 12:58 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-20 15:30 ` Zoltan Kiss
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=5742E752.3090207@6wind.com \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=jianbo.liu@linaro.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=viktorin@rehivetech.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).