On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:56:28 +0100, Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 02:19:21PM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richardson, Bruce
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:42 PM
> > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Verkamp, Daniel <daniel.verk...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:59:59AM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The PROD/CONS_ALIGN values on x86-64 are set to 2 cache lines, so
> > > > > > > members
> > > > > > of struct rte_ring are 128 byte aligned,
> > > > > > >and therefore the whole struct needs 128-byte alignment according
> > > > > > >to the ABI
> > > > > > so that the 128-byte alignment of the fields can be guaranteed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah ok, missed the fact that rte_ring is 128B aligned these days.
> > > > > > BTW, I probably missed the initial discussion, but what was the
> > > > > > reason for that?
> > > > > > Konstantin
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know why PROD_ALIGN/CONS_ALIGN use 128 byte alignment; it
> > > > > seems unnecessary if the cache line is only 64 bytes. An
> > > alternate
> > > > > fix would be to just use cache line alignment for these fields (since
> > > > > memzones are already cache line aligned).
> > > >
> > > > Yes, had the same thought.
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe there is some deeper reason for the >= 128-byte alignment
> > > > > logic in rte_ring.h?
> > > >
> > > > Might be, would be good to hear opinion the author of that change.
> > >
> > > It gives improved performance for core-2-core transfer.
> >
> > You mean empty cache-line(s) after prod/cons, correct?
> > That's ok but why we can't keep them and whole rte_ring aligned on
> > cache-line boundaries?
> > Something like that:
> > struct rte_ring {
> > ...
> > struct rte_ring_headtail prod __rte_cache_aligned;
> > EMPTY_CACHE_LINE __rte_cache_aligned;
> > struct rte_ring_headtail cons __rte_cache_aligned;
> > EMPTY_CACHE_LINE __rte_cache_aligned;
> > };
> >
> > Konstantin
>
> Sure. That should probably work too.
>
> /Bruce
I also agree with Konstantin's proposal. One question though: since it
changes the alignment constraint of the rte_ring structure, I think it is
an ABI breakage: a structure including the rte_ring structure inherits
from this constraint.
How could we handle that, knowing this is probably a rare case?
