On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:58:21PM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > From: Tyler Retzlaff [mailto:roret...@linux.microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2024 07.46
> >
> > Replace the use of RTE_MARKER<x> with C11 anonymous unions to improve
> > code portability between toolchains.
>
> How about combining the cacheline 0 marker and padding, like this:
this seems like a good suggestion i will evaluate it. at least it gets
rid of all the extra nesting if there are no unforseen problems.
>
> struct rte_mbuf {
> - RTE_MARKER cacheline0;
> + union {
> + char cacheline0[RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE];
>
> + struct {
> - void *buf_addr; /**< Virtual address of segment buffer. */
> + void *buf_addr; /**< Virtual address of segment buffer.
> */
> #if RTE_IOVA_IN_MBUF
>
>
> You could do the same with the cacheline1 marker:
yeah, i wondered if i should. i'll do it since it does seem more
consistent to just pad out both cachelines explicitly instead of just
doing all but the last.
we probably don't need to align struct rte_mbuf type if we do since it
will cause it to be naturally aligned to RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE.
>
> /* second cache line - fields only used in slow path or on TX */
> - RTE_MARKER cacheline1 __rte_cache_min_aligned;
> + union {
> + char cacheline1[RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE];
>
> + struct {
> #if RTE_IOVA_IN_MBUF
> - /**
> - * Next segment of scattered packet. Must be NULL in the last
> - * segment or in case of non-segmented packet.
> - */
> - struct rte_mbuf *next;
> + /**
> + * Next segment of scattered packet. Must be NULL in
> the last
> + * segment or in case of non-segmented packet.
> + */
> + struct rte_mbuf *next;
> #else
>
>
> It also avoids the weird union between cacheline0 and buf_addr at the
> beginning of the structure, and between cacheline1 and next/dynfield2 at the
> beginning of the second cache line.
>
> And then you can omit the pad_cacheline0 array at the end of the first part
> of the structure.
>
>
> BTW: char is a weaker type than uint8_t - i.e. it is easier to cast to
> another type.
> It might be a personal preference, but I would use char instead of uint8_t
> for the padding array.
noted, i'll make the change.
thanks!
