> Subject: Re: rte_mbuf structure size in Windows > > Hi, > > This is the issue we were talking about from the beginning of year. Microsoft > was supposed to track the bug and allocate resources to fix it if possible. On > the last community call, Naty and Omar claimed there is no noticeable > performance impact with l2fwd if mbuf spans 3 cache lines, but DmitryM > commented this may depend on cache utilization. > > For GCC, the following workaround exists: > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > 2Fgithub.com%2FPlushBeaver%2Fdpdk%2Fcommit%2F37f052cb18d1d5d4258 > 18196d5e1d15a7ada0de0&data=02%7C01%7Ctalshn%40mellanox.com% > 7Ca5df987ffdff439a4ea608d7f7189f62%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f46 > 1b%7C0%7C0%7C637249557444653368&sdata=dkaDS7%2FM%2BvOwgx > RVjfRsGkAO66rGhRCAHUHzybpOxYY%3D&reserved=0
Thank you Dmitry, do we plan to push this WO or stay with 3 cache lines uniformly on Windows builds until the clang bug is resolved? (I'm out of the loop regarding this issue). > > No workaround for Clang is known, bug URL: > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > 2Fbugs.llvm.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D24383&data=02%7C01%7Ct > alshn%40mellanox.com%7Ca5df987ffdff439a4ea608d7f7189f62%7Ca652971c > 7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637249557444653368&sdata > =XJnc7Q%2BTRt%2F2TyPEOl3uO2cXhdCFzArbvreDak65DJw%3D&reserv > ed=0 > > -- > Dmitry Kozlyuk
