> From: Konstantin Ananyev [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2025 16.05
>
> > > From: Konstantin Ananyev [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2025 10.51
> > >
> > > > -#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) \
> > > > - (!((mb)->ol_flags & (RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT |
> RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL)))
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Note: Macro optimized for code size.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * The plain macro would be:
> > > > + * #define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) \
> > > > + * (!((mb)->ol_flags & (RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT |
> > > RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL)))
> > > > + *
> > > > + * The flags RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT and RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL are
> both in
> > > the
> > > > MSB (most significant
> > > > + * byte) of the 64-bit ol_flags field, so we only compare this
> one
> > > byte instead of all
> > > > 64 bits.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * E.g., GCC version 16.0.0 20251019 (experimental) generates
> the
> > > following code
> > > > for x86-64.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * With the plain macro, 17 bytes of instructions:
> > > > + * movabs rax,0x6000000000000000 // 10 bytes
> > > > + * and rax,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x18] // 4 bytes
> > > > + * sete al // 3 bytes
> > > > + * With this optimized macro, only 7 bytes of instructions:
> > > > + * test BYTE PTR [rdi+0x1f],0x60 // 4 bytes
> > > > + * sete al // 3 bytes
> > > > + */
> > > > +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > > > +/* On little endian architecture, the MSB of a 64-bit integer is
> at
> > > byte offset 7. */
> > > > +#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) !(((const char *)(&(mb)-
> > > >ol_flags))[7] & 0x60)
> > > > +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> > > > +/* On big endian architecture, the MSB of a 64-bit integer is at
> > > byte offset 0. */
> > > > +#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) !(((const char *)(&(mb)-
> > > >ol_flags))[0] & 0x60)
> > >
> > > A stupid q: why then not simply do:
> > > (mb->ol_flags >> 56) & 0x60
> > > then?
> > > Should help to all these LE/BE casts, etc.
> >
> > GCC is too stupid for that too.
> >
> > Playing around with Godbolt shows that
> > return !((char)(p[3] >> 56) & 0x60);
> > becomes
> > movzx eax,BYTE PTR [rdi+0x1f] // 4 bytes
> > test al,0x60 // 2 bytes
> > Instead of simply
> > test BYTE PTR [rdi+0x1f],0x60 // 4 bytes
>
> And these 2 extra bytes in instructions, are that really that critical?
> My guess, we wouldn't notice any real diff here.
The optimized macro made the common code path of the refactored
rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() fit into one cache line.
IIRC, all 10 bytes saving were required for this.
> But if it really is, can I ask you to create a new define for 0x60,
> to avoid hardcoded constants in the code?
> Might be something like
> #define RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT_EXTERNAL_1B ...
> or so.
I started out using the field names, but Bruce suggested using 0x60 for
readability, making the macros shorter, which IMO looks good.
I don't like adding special names just for this, so either we stick with 0x60
or go for "(char)((RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) >> (7 *
CHAR_BIT))", something like this:
#ifdef __DOXYGEN__
#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) \
!(((const char *)(&(mb)->ol_flags))[MSB_OFFSET /* 7 or 0, depending on
endianness */] & \
(char)((RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) >> (7 * CHAR_BIT)))
#else /* !__DOXYGEN__ */
#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
/* On little endian architecture, the MSB of a 64-bit integer is at byte offset
7. */
#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) \
!(((const char *)(&(mb)->ol_flags))[7] & \
(char)((RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) >> (7 * CHAR_BIT)))
#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
/* On big endian architecture, the MSB of a 64-bit integer is at byte offset 0.
*/
#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) \
!(((const char *)(&(mb)->ol_flags))[0] & \
(char)((RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) >> (7 * CHAR_BIT)))
#endif /* RTE_BYTE_ORDER */
#endif /* !__DOXYGEN__ */
/* Verify the optimization above. */
static_assert(((RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) & (UINT64_C(0xFF) <<
(7 * CHAR_BIT))) ==
(RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL),
"(RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) is not at MSB");
> Konstantin
>
> > Good suggestion, though.
> >
> > >
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +/* Verify the optimization above. */
> > > > +static_assert((RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) ==
> > > > UINT64_C(0x60) << (7 * CHAR_BIT),
> > > > + "(RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) is not 0x60 at
> > > MSB");
> > > >
> > > > /** Uninitialized or unspecified port. */
> > > > #define RTE_MBUF_PORT_INVALID UINT16_MAX
> > > > --
> > > > 2.43.0
