2017-03-16 10:43, Hunt, David: > On 15/3/2017 5:18 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2017-03-15 06:19, David Hunt: > >> +/** > >> + * Number of packets to deal with in bursts. Needs to be 8 so as to > >> + * fit in one cache line. > >> + */ > >> +#define RTE_DIST_BURST_SIZE (sizeof(rte_xmm_t) / sizeof(uint16_t)) > > error: 'rte_xmm_t' undeclared here (arm compilation) > > > > Can it be fixed by including rte_vect.h? > > > > Ideally I would prefer we stop using XMM types in a generic code. > > XMM are x86-only registers. It has been translated for other arches > > but we should use a more generic name. > > > > What was the intention here? SSE-optimized code or 128-bit size? > > Please check lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_vect.h > > for a generic type. > > Thomas, > > Including rte_vect.h does indeed resolve the issue. > > I had originally had "#define RTE_DIST_BURST_SIZE 8" but thought that latest > definition would give further clarity as to why it's set to 8. > > There are 2 reasons. > 1. The vector instruction I use for the matching works on 8 uint16s at a > time > 2. The (x86) cache lines communicating with the worker cores fit 8 mbuf > pointers at a time. > > So there are 2 options to resolve: > 1. #include <rte_vect.h> at the top of rte_distributor_private.h > 2. revert back to "#define RTE_DIST_BURST_SIZE 8" > > Personally, I'd probably lean towards option 2 (with additional comment) > , as it removes > the mention of xmm from the generic header file, as well as being valid > for both > reasons, whereas the xmm #define really only helps to explain one reason. > > Do you have any preference? Let me know and I can push up a v11. > > Regards, > Dave. > > > P.S. Suggested change: > > /* > * Transfer up to 8 mbufs at a time to/from workers, and > * flow matching algorithm optimised for 8 flow IDs at a time > */ > #define RTE_DIST_BURST_SIZE 8
OK for the option 2
