From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prefetch second cacheline of mbufs on alloc
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:16:08 +0100
Message-ID: <20170216161608.6715803c@platinum>
References: <1431386118-2811-1-git-send-email-emmericp@net.in.tum.de>
 <6143149.O6nc0QL3DF@xps13> <55ACAB1B.2030508@6wind.com>
 <1666545.dgckzNb2Rl@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org,
 Paul Emmerich <emmericp@net.in.tum.de>, "Mike A. Polehn"
 <mike.a.polehn@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEEE39EA
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:16:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id r141so17619055wmg.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:16:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1666545.dgckzNb2Rl@xps13>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:44:35 +0100, Thomas Monjalon
<thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> Do we need to discuss again the prefetch calls inside DPDK
> or can we definitely close this kind of request?
> 	mbuf: http://dpdk.org/patch/4678/
> 	ethdev: http://dpdk.org/patch/8867/
> 

About the mbuf prefetch, I suggest the topic can be closed:
The rte_pkt_mbuf_alloc() function is not necessarily called in a place
where we will write the second cache line, so the prefetch is not always
useful. Having prefetches in generic functions does not look to be a
good idea, especially in that case, knowing it's easy to do it in the
application.


Olivier


> 
> 2015-07-20 10:02, Olivier MATZ:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > 
> > On 07/20/2015 03:00 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:  
> > > Please Olivier,
> > > What is the status of this patch?  
> > 
> > From what I remember, the last mail was a comment from Konstantin
> > on another thread (but same topic):
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017633.html
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Olivier
> > 
> >   
> > > 
> > > 2015-05-12 01:15, Paul Emmerich:  
> > >> this improves the throughput of a simple tx-only application by
> > >> 11% in the full-featured ixgbe tx path and by 14% in the simple
> > >> tx path. ---
> > >>  lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 1 +
> > >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > >> b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h index ab6de67..f6895b4 100644
> > >> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > >> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > >> @@ -538,6 +538,7 @@ static inline struct rte_mbuf
> > >> *__rte_mbuf_raw_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp) if
> > >> (rte_mempool_get(mp, &mb) < 0) return NULL;
> > >>  	m = (struct rte_mbuf *)mb;
> > >> +	rte_prefetch0(&m->cacheline1);
> > >>  	RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) == 0);
> > >>  	rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> > >>  	return (m);
> > >>  
> > > 
> > >   
> 
>