20/01/2020 13:24, Olivier Matz: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 06:40:23PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:35 AM <jer...@marvell.com> wrote: > > > > > > From: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > > > > The existing optimize_object_size() function address the memory object > > > alignment constraint on x86 for better performance. > > > > > > Different (micro) architecture may have different memory alignment > > > constraint for better performance and it not the same as the existing > > > optimize_object_size(). > > > > > > Some use, XOR(kind of CRC) scheme to enable DRAM channel distribution > > > based on the address and some may have a different formula. > > > > > > Introducing arch_mem_object_align() function to abstract > > > the difference between different (micro) architectures to avoid > > > wasting memory for mempool object alignment for the architecture > > > that it is not required to do so. > > > > > > Details on the amount of memory saving: > > > > > > Currently, arm64 based architectures use the default (nchan=4, > > > nrank=1). The worst case is for an object whose size (including mempool > > > header) is 2 cache lines, where it is optimized to 3 cache lines (+50%). > > > > > > Examples for cache lines size = 64: > > > orig optimized > > > 64 -> 64 +0% > > > 128 -> 192 +50% > > > 192 -> 192 +0% > > > 256 -> 320 +25% > > > 320 -> 320 +0% > > > 384 -> 448 +16% > > > ... > > > 2304 -> 2368 +2.7% (~mbuf size) > > > > > > Additional details: > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@dpdk.org/msg149157.html > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com> > > > > Ping for merge. > > Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
Applied, thanks
