> -----Original Message----- > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 4:08 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]> > Cc: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>; Yerden Zhumabekov > <[email protected]>; Richardson, Bruce > <[email protected]>; Verkamp, Daniel <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation > > -----Original Message----- > > Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:16:44 +0000 > > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <[email protected]> > > To: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>, Stephen Hemminger > > <[email protected]> > > CC: Yerden Zhumabekov <[email protected]>, "Richardson, Bruce" > > <[email protected]>, "Verkamp, Daniel" > > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:29 PM > > > To: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Yerden Zhumabekov <[email protected]>; Ananyev, Konstantin > > > <[email protected]>; Richardson, Bruce > > > <[email protected]>; Verkamp, Daniel <[email protected]>; > > > [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:16:25 -0700 > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> > > > > To: Yerden Zhumabekov <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <[email protected]>, "Richardson, > > > > Bruce" <[email protected]>, "Verkamp, Daniel" > > > > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation > > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:47:43 +0600 > > > > Yerden Zhumabekov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 06.06.2017 19:19, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Maybe there is some deeper reason for the >= 128-byte alignment > > > > > >>>> logic in rte_ring.h? > > > > > >>> Might be, would be good to hear opinion the author of that change. > > > > > >> It gives improved performance for core-2-core transfer. > > > > > > You mean empty cache-line(s) after prod/cons, correct? > > > > > > That's ok but why we can't keep them and whole rte_ring aligned on > > > > > > cache-line boundaries? > > > > > > Something like that: > > > > > > struct rte_ring { > > > > > > ... > > > > > > struct rte_ring_headtail prod __rte_cache_aligned; > > > > > > EMPTY_CACHE_LINE __rte_cache_aligned; > > > > > > struct rte_ring_headtail cons __rte_cache_aligned; > > > > > > EMPTY_CACHE_LINE __rte_cache_aligned; > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm curious, can anyone explain, how does it actually affect > > > > > performance? Maybe we can utilize it application code? > > > > > > > > I think it is because on Intel CPU's the CPU will speculatively fetch > > > > adjacent cache lines. > > > > If these cache lines change, then it will create false sharing. > > > > > > I see. I think, In such cases it is better to abstract as conditional > > > compilation. The above logic has worst case cache memory > > > requirement if CPU is 128B CL and no speculative prefetch.
I suppose we can keep exactly the same logic as we have now: archs with 64B cache-line would have an empty cache line, for archs with 128B cacheline - no. Is that what you are looking for? Konstantin > > > > I think this is already done for rte_ring.h: > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h#n119 > > Yes. The suggestion was in the context of when introducing the > EMPTY_CACHE_LINE scheme, it should be a function of ARCH has > speculative next cache-line prefetch or not? > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > >
