On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:17 PM Vladimir Medvedkin
<vladimir.medved...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> New data type to manipulate 512 bit AVX values.
The title mentions a "zmm" type that is not added by this patch.
Maybe instead, "eal/x86: introduce AVX 512-bit type"
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medved...@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h
> b/lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h
> index df5a60762..ae59126bc 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <rte_config.h>
> +#include <rte_common.h>
> #include "generic/rte_vect.h"
>
> #if (defined(__ICC) || \
> @@ -90,6 +91,26 @@ __extension__ ({ \
> })
> #endif /* (defined(__ICC) && __ICC < 1210) */
>
> +#ifdef __AVX512F__
> +
> +typedef __m512i __x86_zmm_t;
We don't need this interim type, using the native __m512 is enough afaics.
Looking at the whole applied series:
$ git grep -lw __x86_zmm_t
lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h
> +
> +#define ZMM_SIZE (sizeof(__x86_zmm_t))
> +#define ZMM_MASK (ZMM_SIZE - 1)
Macros in a public header need a RTE_ prefix + this is x86 specific,
then RTE_X86_.
Looking at the whole applied series:
$ git grep -lw ZMM_SIZE
lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h
$ git grep -lw ZMM_MASK
lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h
So I wonder if we need to export it or we can instead just #undef
after the struct definition.
> +
> +typedef union __rte_x86_zmm {
> + __x86_zmm_t z;
> + ymm_t y[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(ymm_t)];
> + xmm_t x[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(xmm_t)];
> + uint8_t u8[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(uint8_t)];
> + uint16_t u16[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(uint16_t)];
> + uint32_t u32[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(uint32_t)];
> + uint64_t u64[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t)];
> + double pd[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(double)];
> +} __rte_aligned(ZMM_SIZE) __rte_x86_zmm_t;
I don't understand this forced alignment statement.
Would not natural alignment be enough, since all fields in this union
have the same size?
--
David Marchand
