From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix performance/cache resource issues with 128-byte cache line targets Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 20:03:05 +0530 Message-ID: <20151207143300.GA20063@localhost.localdomain> References: <1449417564-29600-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <1631625.Dg38D5sl3P@xps13> <20151207072644.GA3950@localhost.localdomain> <1624480.dTEes5qyS3@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0074.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.74]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1926395B4 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:33:35 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1624480.dTEes5qyS3@xps13> 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, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:40:13AM -0800, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-12-07 12:56, Jerin Jacob: > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 05:30:50PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2015-12-06 21:29, Jerin Jacob: > > > > This patchset fixes performance/cache resource issues with 128-byte cache line targets > > > > found in mbuf and bitmap DPDK libraries > > > > > > > > Currently, we have two DPDK targets(ThunderX and ppc_64) which are based on > > > > 128-bytes cache line size target. > > > > > > When introducing IBM Power8, we failed to clean the cache line size definition. > > > I promised to not forget this issue in this thread with Neil: > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009439.html > > > > > > It is defined in > > > config/defconfig_* > > > mk/machine/*/rte.vars.mk > > > mk/arch/*/rte.vars.mk > > > rte_memory.h > > > rte_kni_common.h > > > > > > It should be defined only in the config files. > > > When we will introduce a configure script, we should be able to detect it. > > > > > > Please Jerin, as ThunderX maintainer, may you help to fix this old mess? > > > > Yes Thomas, I will takeup this issue when we will have configure script. > > I thought we could start setting the value in only one place. > The detection in configure script would be another step. OK Thomas, I have sent the cleanup patch. Please review it. Jerin > > > apart from that, content of the this patch will be still valid > > as the fix going to be generating cache line define from the config file. > >