On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 01:19:46PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> 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
Can we come to some consensus on this for this release. The original problem was
mbuf->rearm_data not being natually aligned and the assosiated performacnce
issues with ARM architecture for non naturally aligned access.
I believe that is fixing in this patch without any performance degradation on
IA.
I believe that is a good progress. Can we make further mbuff improvements as
a additional problem to solve.
Thoughts ?
Jerin
