> From: Konstantin Ananyev [mailto:konstantin.v.anan...@yandex.ru] > Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2022 10.55 > > 04/07/2022 12:35, Morten Brørup пишет: > > Does anyone here remember why the > __rte_ring_enqueue/dequeue_elems_64/128() functions support unaligned > object arrays, when the __rte_ring_enqueue/dequeue_elems_32() functions > require 4 byte aligned object arrays? > > As I remember, we added 'unaligned' to be able to use rte_ring with > elements that might have smaller alignment.
Was there a use case behind this, or just trying to future proof the ring library? Using arrays of unaligned objects seems quite exotic to me. > For 32 - as I remember we never explicitly require 4B aligned > objects for the rings ... Am I missing something here? Not related to my question; I was only referring to 32 to show the difference for the 64/128 functions. > My guess, we just never hit such problem so it gets unnoticed. > Probably worth updating 32-bit version too with explicit 'unaligned' > type. I would suggest doing the opposite, i.e. removing unaligned from 64/128, unless there is a real use case requiring unaligned elements. Either way, we agree that it should be consistent across the 32-bit version too. > > > > I'm wondering if the compiler could do better with a simpler > implementation than the manually implemented loop unrolls, and if the > unalignment silliness would stand in the way. > > > > Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards, > > -Morten Brørup > > >
