Hi David,
Thanks for review
On 09/07/2020 14:48, David Marchand wrote:
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"
Agree
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.
Agree
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.
I think it's better to undef it
+
+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?
Some compilers won't align this union
https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-March/159591.html
--
Regards,
Vladimir
