From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Konstantin Ananyev" <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, "Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"Konstantin Ananyev" <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>,
"Vipin Varghese" <vipin.varghese@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] eal/x86: optimize memcpy of small sizes
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:39:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260112163939.12c7cf8f@phoenix.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFn2buBx3JNXS1pb6w=0S1HOAxmG+HVTkk=_b+1kou5MnAnqpw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 11:00:36 -0500
Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The discussion about the optimized checksum function [1] has shown us that memcpy() sometimes prevents Clang from optimizing (loop unrolling and vectorizing) and potentially causes strict aliasing bugs with GCC, so I will work on a new patch version that keeps using the above types, instead of introducing memcpy() inside rte_memcpy().
> >
> > [1]: https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/CAFn2buBzBLFLVN-K=u3MgBEbQ-hqbgJLVpDx3vSXVKJpa0yPNg@mail.gmail.com/
> >
>
> Great timing for this thread :)
>
> My observation:
> - clang is unable to apply optimizations with RTE_PTR_[ADD,SUB]
> like loop unrolling and vectorization (e.g. cksum)
> - Even when clang/gcc do apply optimizations the assembly can be non-optimal
> - direct usage of unaligned_NN_t types can cause incorrect results
> (due to gcc bugs)
>
> I don't think "rte_NN_alias" structs are safe on architectures that don't allow
> unaligned access bcz the inner "val" needs to indicate it maybe for
> unaligned access.
>
> My suggestion:
> 1. Fix unaligned_NN_t types to ensure compiler doesn't aggressively
> apply strict-alias
> optimizations resulting in incorrect results
> (https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20260112120411.27314-2-scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com/).
> Intermediate structs rte_NN_alias are then unnecessary and we can directly use
> unaligned_NN_t instead (e.g.
> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20260112120411.27314-3-scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com/)
>
> 2. Improve RTE_PTR_[ADD,SUB] to be more compiler friendly
> (https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20260112154059.36879-1-scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com/)
FYI the Linux kernel avoids the memcpy silliness.
Mostly by identifying architectures where unaligned access is non-issue.
On x86, unaligned access works fine. As I remember it works on ARM as well.
The only place where unaligned can break badly is when this is an atomic operation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-13 0:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-20 11:45 [PATCH] eal/x86: reduce memcpy code duplication Morten Brørup
2025-11-21 10:35 ` [PATCH v2] eal/x86: optimize memcpy of small sizes Morten Brørup
2025-11-21 16:57 ` Stephen Hemminger
2025-11-21 17:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2025-11-21 17:11 ` Stephen Hemminger
2025-11-21 21:36 ` Morten Brørup
2025-11-21 10:40 ` Morten Brørup
2025-11-21 10:40 ` [PATCH v3] " Morten Brørup
2025-11-24 13:36 ` Morten Brørup
2025-11-24 15:46 ` Patrick Robb
2025-11-28 14:02 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2025-11-28 15:55 ` Morten Brørup
2025-11-28 18:10 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2025-11-29 2:17 ` Morten Brørup
2025-12-01 9:35 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2025-12-01 10:41 ` Morten Brørup
2025-11-24 20:31 ` [PATCH v4] " Morten Brørup
2025-11-25 8:19 ` Morten Brørup
2025-12-01 15:55 ` [PATCH v5] " Morten Brørup
2025-12-03 13:29 ` Morten Brørup
2026-01-03 17:53 ` Morten Brørup
2026-01-09 15:05 ` Varghese, Vipin
2026-01-11 15:52 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2026-01-11 16:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2026-01-12 8:02 ` Morten Brørup
2026-01-12 16:00 ` Scott Mitchell
2026-01-13 0:39 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2026-01-12 12:03 ` [PATCH v6] " Morten Brørup
2026-01-13 23:19 ` Stephen Hemminger
2026-01-20 11:00 ` Varghese, Vipin
2026-01-20 11:19 ` Varghese, Vipin
2026-01-20 11:22 ` Morten Brørup
2026-01-21 11:48 ` Varghese, Vipin
2026-01-22 6:59 ` Varghese, Vipin
2026-01-22 7:28 ` Liangxing Wang
2026-01-23 6:58 ` Varghese, Vipin
2026-02-20 11:08 ` [PATCH v7] " Morten Brørup
2026-03-11 7:28 ` Morten Brørup
2026-03-11 16:58 ` Bruce Richardson
2026-03-11 18:29 ` Morten Brørup
2026-03-11 19:09 ` Bruce Richardson
2026-03-12 8:33 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2026-03-19 15:55 ` Morten Brørup
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260112163939.12c7cf8f@phoenix.local \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com \
--cc=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com \
--cc=vipin.varghese@amd.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox