From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/12] mempool: allow config override on element alignment Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:37:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20150706153758.GD3680@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1436172698-21749-1-git-send-email-zlu@ezchip.com> <1436172698-21749-9-git-send-email-zlu@ezchip.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Zhigang Lu Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9242A58 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:38:03 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1436172698-21749-9-git-send-email-zlu@ezchip.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 04:51:33PM +0800, Zhigang Lu wrote: > On TILE-Gx and TILE-Mx platforms, the buffers fed into the hardware > buffer manager require a 128-byte alignment. With this change, we > allow configuration based override of the element alignment, and > default to RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE if left unspecified. > > Change-Id: I9cd789d92b0bc9c8f44a633de59bb04d45d927a7 > Signed-off-by: Zhigang Lu This looks an OK change. However, would it be worthwhile making this a runtime parameter rather than a compile-time one? Is it likely that we will ever have a case where someone wants two mempools with different alignments (and where using the larger of the two would be problematic)? /Bruce