Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4] lib/table: fix cache alignment issue

[David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:54 PM Dumitrescu, Cristian
<cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 2:28 PM
> > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>
> > Cc: Xu, Ting <ting.xu@intel.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; dpdk stable
> > <stable@dpdk.org>; Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>; Luca Boccassi
> > <bluca@debian.org>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] lib/table: fix cache
> > alignment issue
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:14 PM Dumitrescu, Cristian
> > <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > Please correct me if I am wrong, but it simply means this part of the
> > > > table library never worked for 32-bit.
> > > > It seems more adding 32-bit support rather than a fix and then I
> > > > wonder if it has its place in rc3.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Functionally. the code works, but performance is affected.
> > >
> > > The only thing that prevents the code from working is the check in the
> > table create function that checks the size of the above structure is 64 bytes,
> > which caught this issue.
> >
> > Yes, and that's my point.
> > It was not working.
> > It was not tested.
> >
> >
>
> Not sure when this code was last tested on 32-bit systems, I'll let the validation folks comment on this, but I cannot rule out a change in compiler behavior either.
>
> This is a low complexity and low impact change, hence low risk IMO.

Risk is to be evaluated when there is a need.
I got pinged on this, like it was the end of the times.

Then I find something that is not worth looking at, hence I am a bit irritated.

And please, for the 2nd time, can you look at my comment below?


> > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_table/rte_table_hash_key16.c
> > > > b/lib/librte_table/rte_table_hash_key16.c
> > > > > index 2cca1c924..c4384b114 100644
> > > > > --- a/lib/librte_table/rte_table_hash_key16.c
> > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_table/rte_table_hash_key16.c
> > > > > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> > > > >
> > > > >  #endif
> > > > >
> > > > > +#ifdef RTE_ARCH_64
> > > > >  struct rte_bucket_4_16 {
> > > > >         /* Cache line 0 */
> > > > >         uint64_t signature[4 + 1];
> > > > > @@ -46,6 +47,22 @@ struct rte_bucket_4_16 {
> > > > >         /* Cache line 2 */
> > > > >         uint8_t data[0];
> > > > >  };
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +struct rte_bucket_4_16 {
> > > > > +       /* Cache line 0 */
> > > > > +       uint64_t signature[4 + 1];
> > > > > +       uint64_t lru_list;
> > > > > +       struct rte_bucket_4_16 *next;
> > > > > +       uint32_t pad;
> > > > > +       uint64_t next_valid;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       /* Cache line 1 */
> > > > > +       uint64_t key[4][2];
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       /* Cache line 2 */
> > > > > +       uint8_t data[0];
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > > The change could simply be:
> > > >
> > > > @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ struct rte_bucket_4_16 {
> > > >         uint64_t signature[4 + 1];
> > > >         uint64_t lru_list;
> > > >         struct rte_bucket_4_16 *next;
> > > > +#ifndef RTE_ARCH_64
> > > > +       uint32_t pad;
> > > > +#endif
> > > >         uint64_t next_valid;
> > > >
> > > >         /* Cache line 1 */
> > > >
> > > > It avoids duplicating the whole structure definition (we could miss
> > > > updating one side of the #ifdef later).
> > > > Idem for the other "8" and "32" structures.
> >
> >
> > What about this comment?

What about this comment?


-- 
David Marchand