On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:07:09AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Jerrin,
>
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I would like align mbuff rearm_data field to 8 byte aligned so that
> > write to mbuf->rearm_data with uint64_t* will be naturally aligned.
> > I am not sure about IA but some other architecture/implementation has
> > overhead
> > in non-naturally aligned stores.
> >
> > Proposed patch is something like this below, But open for any change to
> > make fit for all other architectures/platform.
> >
> > Any thoughts ?
> >
> > ? [master] [dpdk-master] $ git diff
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > index 529debb..5a917d0 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > @@ -733,10 +733,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > void *buf_addr; /**< Virtual address of segment
> > buffer. */
> > phys_addr_t buf_physaddr; /**< Physical address of segment
> > buffer. */
> >
> > - uint16_t buf_len; /**< Length of segment buffer. */
> > -
>
>
> There is no need to move buf_len itself, I think.
> Just move rearm_data marker prior to buf_len is enough.
> Though how do you suggest to deal with the fact, that right now we blindly
> update the whole 64bits pointed by rearm_data:
>
> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c:
> /*
> * Flush mbuf with pkt template.
> * Data to be rearmed is 6 bytes long.
> * Though, RX will overwrite ol_flags that are coming next
> * anyway. So overwrite whole 8 bytes with one load:
> * 6 bytes of rearm_data plus first 2 bytes of ol_flags.
> */
> p0 = (uintptr_t)&mb0->rearm_data;
> *(uint64_t *)p0 = rxq->mbuf_initializer;
>
> ?
>
> If buf_len will be inside these 64bits, we can't do it anymore.
>
> Are you suggesting something like:
>
> uint64_t *p0, v0;
>
> p0 = &mb0->rearm_data;
> v0 = *p0 & REARM_MASK;
> *p0 = v0 | rxq->mbuf_initializer;
> ?
Due to unaligned rearm_data issue, In ThunderX platform, we need to write
multiple half word of aligned stores(so masking was better us).
But I think, if we can put 16bit hole between port and ol_flags then
we may not need the masking stuff in ixgbe. Right?
OR
Even better, if we can fill in a uint16_t variable which will replaced
later in the flow like "data_len"? and move buf_len at end the first
cache line? or any other thoughts to fix unaligned rearm_data issue?
Jerin
>
> If so I wonder what would be the performance impact of that change.
> Konstantin
>
>
> > /* next 6 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */
> > - MARKER8 rearm_data;
> > + MARKER64 rearm_data;
> > uint16_t data_off;
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -754,6 +752,7 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > uint8_t nb_segs; /**< Number of segments. */
> > uint8_t port; /**< Input port. */
> >
> > + uint16_t buf_len; /**< Length of segment buffer. */
> > uint64_t ol_flags; /**< Offload features. */
> >
> > /* remaining bytes are set on RX when pulling packet from
> > * descriptor
> >
> > /Jerin
