>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 08:32:20PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > From: Shijith Thotton [mailto:sthot...@marvell.com]
>> > > > Sent: Monday, 29 August 2022 17.16
>> > > >
>> > > > mbuf physical address field is not used in builds which only uses VA.
>> > > > It is used to expand the dynamic field area.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Shijith Thotton <sthot...@marvell.com>
>> > > > ---
>> > > > lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
>> > > > lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c | 2 ++
>> > > > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
>> > > > index 81cb07c2e4..98ce62fd6a 100644
>> > > > --- a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
>> > > > +++ b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
>> > > > @@ -579,15 +579,23 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
>> > > > RTE_MARKER cacheline0;
>> > > >
>> > > > void *buf_addr; /**< Virtual address of segment
>> > > > buffer.
>> > > > */
>> > > > - /**
>> > > > - * Physical address of segment buffer.
>> > > > - * This field is invalid if the build is configured to use only
>> > > > - * virtual address as IOVA (i.e. RTE_IOVA_AS_VA is defined).
>> > > > - * Force alignment to 8-bytes, so as to ensure we have the exact
>> > > > - * same mbuf cacheline0 layout for 32-bit and 64-bit. This makes
>> > > > - * working on vector drivers easier.
>> > > > - */
>> > > > - rte_iova_t buf_iova __rte_aligned(sizeof(rte_iova_t));
>> > > > + RTE_STD_C11
>> > > > + union {
>> > > > + /**
>> > > > + * Physical address of segment buffer.
>> > > > + * This field is invalid if the build is configured to
>> > > > use
>> > > > only
>> > > > + * virtual address as IOVA (i.e. RTE_IOVA_AS_VA is
>> > > > defined).
>> > > > + * Force alignment to 8-bytes, so as to ensure we have
>> > > > the
>> > > > exact
>> > > > + * same mbuf cacheline0 layout for 32-bit and 64-bit.
>> > > > This
>> > > > makes
>> > > > + * working on vector drivers easier.
>> > > > + */
>> > > > + rte_iova_t buf_iova __rte_aligned(sizeof(rte_iova_t));
>> > > > + /**
>> > > > + * Reserved for dynamic field in builds where physical
>> > > > address
>> > > > + * field is invalid.
>> > > > + */
>> > > > + uint64_t dynfield2;
>> > > > + };
>> > > >
>> > > > /* next 8 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */
>> > > > RTE_MARKER64 rearm_data;
>> > >
>> > > I know that the intention here is to keep the rte_mbuf structure
>> > > intact,
>> > which will certainly improve the probability of getting this patch
>> > series into DPDK.
>> > >
>> > > So, I will add a comment for the benefit of the other participants
>> > > in the
>> > discussion:
>> > >
>> > > With this patch, and in RTE_IOVA_AS_VA mode, it becomes possible to
>> > move m->next into the first cache line, so rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg()
>> > does not have to touch the second cache line, thus potentially
>> > improving performance by eliminating one cache miss per freed packet
>> > segment. (I also recall someone mentioning that some PMDs set m->next
>> > on RX... If that is the case, a cache miss per packet might also be
>> > avoidable in those PMDs.)
>> > >
>> > > Obviously, moving m->next to the first cache line is not related to
>> > > this patch
>> > series, but would belong in a completely different patch.
>> > >
>> >
>> > +1 to that, with the exception that if it is decided to move the next
>> > pointer rather than use this as dynamic space, I think it *should* be
>> > in this patch series, rather than mucking about with mbuf twice. :-)
>>
>> +1 When RTE_IOVA_AS_VA is set we can set mbuf->next as the dynamic field
>> and move it to mbuf->buf_iova.
>> mbuf->next write is one of the prominent hotspot in arm platforms.
>+1 for reducing the cachelines that need to be touched
Added a new patch to move next pointer to first cache line in v2. Please review.
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20220907134340.3629224-4-sthot...@marvell.com/
