public inbox for dev@dpdk.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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