> > > > > > > > > > The initial objective of
> > > > > > > > > > commit d9f0d3a1ffd4 ("ring: remove split cacheline build
> > > > > > > > > > setting")
> > > > > > > > > > was to add an empty cache line betwee, the producer and
> > > > > > > > > > consumer
> > > > > > > > > > data (on platform with cache line size = 64B), preventing
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > having them on adjacent cache lines.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Following discussion on the mailing list, it appears that
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > also imposes an alignment constraint that is not required.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This patch removes the extra alignment constraint and adds
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > empty cache lines using padding fields in the structure. The
> > > > > > > > > > size of rte_ring structure and the offset of the fields
> > > > > > > > > > remain
> > > > > > > > > > the same on platforms with cache line size = 64B:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring = 384
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.name = 0
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.flags = 32
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.memzone = 40
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.size = 48
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.mask = 52
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.prod = 128
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.cons = 256
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But it has an impact on platform where cache line size is
> > > > > > > > > > 128B:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring = 384 -> 768
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.name = 0
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.flags = 32
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.memzone = 40
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.size = 48
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.mask = 52
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.prod = 128 -> 256
> > > > > > > > > > rte_ring.cons = 256 -> 512
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are we leaving TWO cacheline to make sure, HW prefetch don't
> > > > > > > > > load
> > > > > > > > > the adjust cacheline(consumer)?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If so, Will it have impact on those machine where it is 128B
> > > > > > > > > Cache line
> > > > > > > > > and the HW prefetcher is not loading the next caching
> > > > > > > > > explicitly. Right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The impact on machines that have a 128B cache line is that an
> > > > > > > > unused
> > > > > > > > cache line will be added between the producer and consumer
> > > > > > > > data. I
> > > > > > > > expect that the impact is positive in case there is a hw
> > > > > > > > prefetcher, and
> > > > > > > > null in case there is no such prefetcher.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is not NULL, Right? You are loosing 256B for each ring.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it really that important?
> > > > >
> > > > > Pipeline or eventdev SW cases there could more rings in the system.
> > > > > I don't see any downside of having config option which is enabled
> > > > > default.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my view, such config options are good, as in embedded usecases,
> > > > > customers
> > > > > can really fine tune the target for the need. In server usecases, let
> > > > > the default
> > > > > of option be enabled, no harm.
> > > >
> > > > But that would mean we have to maintain two layouts for the rte_ring
> > > > structure.
> > >
> > > Is there any downside of having two configurable layout? meaning, we are
> > > not
> > > transferring rte_ring structure over network etc(ie no interoperability
> > > issue). Does it really matter? May I am missing something here.
> >
> > My concern about potential compatibility problems we are introducing -
> > library build with 'y', while app wit 'n', or visa-versa.
>
> Got it.
>
> > I wonder are there really a lot of users who would be interested in such
> > savings?
> > Could it happen that this new option would sit here unused and untested?
>
> OK. Fair enough. I have no objections for Olivier patch.
Applied, thanks
