-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:18:39 +0000 > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > CC: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>, Yerden Zhumabekov > <e_zhumabe...@sts.kz>, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richard...@intel.com>, > "Verkamp, Daniel" <daniel.verk...@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" > <dev@dpdk.org> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 4:08 AM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > Cc: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; Yerden Zhumabekov > > <e_zhumabe...@sts.kz>; Richardson, Bruce > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Verkamp, Daniel <daniel.verk...@intel.com>; > > dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:16:44 +0000 > > > From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>, Stephen Hemminger > > > <step...@networkplumber.org> > > > CC: Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabe...@sts.kz>, "Richardson, Bruce" > > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>, "Verkamp, Daniel" > > > <daniel.verk...@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com] > > > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:29 PM > > > > To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > > > Cc: Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabe...@sts.kz>; Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce > > > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Verkamp, Daniel > > > > <daniel.verk...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone allocation > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:16:25 -0700 > > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > > > > To: Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabe...@sts.kz> > > > > > Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>, "Richardson, > > > > > Bruce" <bruce.richard...@intel.com>, "Verkamp, Daniel" > > > > > <daniel.verk...@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ring: use aligned memzone > > > > > allocation > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:47:43 +0600 > > > > > Yerden Zhumabekov <e_zhumabe...@sts.kz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 06.06.2017 19:19, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm curious, can anyone explain, how does it actually affect > > > > > > performance? Maybe we can utilize it application code? > > > > > > > > > > I think it is because on Intel CPU's the CPU will speculatively fetch > > > > > adjacent cache lines. > > > > > If these cache lines change, then it will create false sharing. > > > > > > > > I see. I think, In such cases it is better to abstract as conditional > > > > compilation. The above logic has worst case cache memory > > > > requirement if CPU is 128B CL and no speculative prefetch. > > I suppose we can keep exactly the same logic as we have now: > archs with 64B cache-line would have an empty cache line, > for archs with 128B cacheline - no. > Is that what you are looking for?
Its valid to an arch with 128B cache-line and speculative cache prefetch. (Cavium's recent SoCs comes with this property) IMHO, Instead of making 128B as NOOP. We can introduce a new conditional compilation flag(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_SPECULATIVE_PREFETCH or something like that) to decide the empty line and I think, In future we can use the same config for similar use cases. Jerin > Konstantin > > > > > > > I think this is already done for rte_ring.h: > > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h#n119 > > > > Yes. The suggestion was in the context of when introducing the > > EMPTY_CACHE_LINE scheme, it should be a function of ARCH has > > speculative next cache-line prefetch or not? > > > > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > >
