* [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length @ 2014-12-05 15:20 Konstantin Ananyev [not found] ` <1417792834-20590-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Konstantin Ananyev @ 2014-12-05 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dev-VfR2kkLFssw That's an alternative way to fix the problem described in the patch: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009394.html. The main difference is: - move buf_len fields out of rearm_data marker. - make ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec() not touch buf_len field at all (as all other RX functions behave). Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> --- lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 7 +++++-- lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c | 20 +++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h index 2e5fce5..bb88318 100644 --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h @@ -179,6 +179,8 @@ const char *rte_get_tx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t mask); typedef void *MARKER[0]; /**< generic marker for a point in a structure */ typedef uint64_t MARKER64[0]; /**< marker that allows us to overwrite 8 bytes * with a single assignment */ +typedef uint8_t MARKER8[0]; /**< generic marker with 1B alignment */ + /** * The generic rte_mbuf, containing a packet mbuf. */ @@ -188,9 +190,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf { void *buf_addr; /**< Virtual address of segment buffer. */ phys_addr_t buf_physaddr; /**< Physical address of segment buffer. */ - /* next 8 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */ - MARKER64 rearm_data; uint16_t buf_len; /**< Length of segment buffer. */ + + /* next 6 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */ + MARKER8 rearm_data; uint16_t data_off; /** diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c index 579bc46..d5fc0cc 100644 --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c @@ -79,13 +79,22 @@ ixgbe_rxq_rearm(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) /* Initialize the mbufs in vector, process 2 mbufs in one loop */ for (i = 0; i < RTE_IXGBE_RXQ_REARM_THRESH; i += 2, rxep += 2) { __m128i vaddr0, vaddr1; + uintptr_t p0, p1; mb0 = rxep[0].mbuf; mb1 = rxep[1].mbuf; - /* flush mbuf with pkt template */ - mb0->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer; - mb1->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer; + /* + * Flush mbuf with pkt template. + * Data to be rearmed is 6 bytes long. + * Though, RX will overwrite ol_flags that are coming next + * anyway. So overwrite whole 8 bytes with one load: + * 6 bytes of rearm_data plus first 2 bytes of ol_flags. + */ + p0 = (uintptr_t)&mb0->rearm_data; + *(uint64_t *)p0 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; + p1 = (uintptr_t)&mb1->rearm_data; + *(uint64_t *)p1 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; /* load buf_addr(lo 64bit) and buf_physaddr(hi 64bit) */ vaddr0 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&(mb0->buf_addr)); @@ -732,14 +741,15 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops = { int ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) { + uintptr_t p; struct rte_mbuf mb_def = { .buf_addr = 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */ mb_def.nb_segs = 1; mb_def.data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM; - mb_def.buf_len = rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf); mb_def.port = rxq->port_id; rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1); - rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def.rearm_data); + p = (uintptr_t)&mb_def.rearm_data; + rxq->mbuf_initializer = *(uint64_t *)p; return 0; } -- 1.8.3.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1417792834-20590-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length [not found] ` <1417792834-20590-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-12-05 16:59 ` Jean-Mickael Guerin [not found] ` <5481E456.1050001-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jean-Mickael Guerin @ 2014-12-05 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw On 05/12/2014 16:20, Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > That's an alternative way to fix the problem described in the patch: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009394.html. > The main difference is: > - move buf_len fields out of rearm_data marker. > - make ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec() not touch buf_len field at all > (as all other RX functions behave). > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > --- > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 7 +++++-- > lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c | 20 +++++++++++++++----- > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > index 2e5fce5..bb88318 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > @@ -179,6 +179,8 @@ const char *rte_get_tx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t mask); > typedef void *MARKER[0]; /**< generic marker for a point in a structure */ > typedef uint64_t MARKER64[0]; /**< marker that allows us to overwrite 8 bytes > * with a single assignment */ > +typedef uint8_t MARKER8[0]; /**< generic marker with 1B alignment */ > + > /** > * The generic rte_mbuf, containing a packet mbuf. > */ > @@ -188,9 +190,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf { > void *buf_addr; /**< Virtual address of segment buffer. */ > phys_addr_t buf_physaddr; /**< Physical address of segment buffer. */ > > - /* next 8 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */ > - MARKER64 rearm_data; > uint16_t buf_len; /**< Length of segment buffer. */ > + > + /* next 6 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */ > + MARKER8 rearm_data; > uint16_t data_off; > > /** > diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > index 579bc46..d5fc0cc 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > @@ -79,13 +79,22 @@ ixgbe_rxq_rearm(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) > /* Initialize the mbufs in vector, process 2 mbufs in one loop */ > for (i = 0; i < RTE_IXGBE_RXQ_REARM_THRESH; i += 2, rxep += 2) { > __m128i vaddr0, vaddr1; > + uintptr_t p0, p1; > > mb0 = rxep[0].mbuf; > mb1 = rxep[1].mbuf; > > - /* flush mbuf with pkt template */ > - mb0->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > - mb1->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > + /* > + * Flush mbuf with pkt template. > + * Data to be rearmed is 6 bytes long. > + * Though, RX will overwrite ol_flags that are coming next > + * anyway. So overwrite whole 8 bytes with one load: > + * 6 bytes of rearm_data plus first 2 bytes of ol_flags. > + */ > + p0 = (uintptr_t)&mb0->rearm_data; > + *(uint64_t *)p0 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > + p1 = (uintptr_t)&mb1->rearm_data; > + *(uint64_t *)p1 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > > /* load buf_addr(lo 64bit) and buf_physaddr(hi 64bit) */ > vaddr0 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&(mb0->buf_addr)); > @@ -732,14 +741,15 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops = { > int > ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) > { > + uintptr_t p; > struct rte_mbuf mb_def = { .buf_addr = 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */ > > mb_def.nb_segs = 1; > mb_def.data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM; > - mb_def.buf_len = rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf); > mb_def.port = rxq->port_id; > rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1); > - rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def.rearm_data); > + p = (uintptr_t)&mb_def.rearm_data; > + rxq->mbuf_initializer = *(uint64_t *)p; > return 0; > } > > The patch introduces writes on unaligned data, but we can assume no performance penalty on intel hw, correct? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <5481E456.1050001-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length [not found] ` <5481E456.1050001-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-12-05 17:07 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [not found] ` <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BD098-kPTMFJFq+rEu0RiL9chJVbfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ananyev, Konstantin @ 2014-12-05 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jean-Mickael Guerin; +Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Mickael Guerin [mailto:jean-mickael.guerin-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 4:59 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length > > On 05/12/2014 16:20, Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > > That's an alternative way to fix the problem described in the patch: > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009394.html. > > The main difference is: > > - move buf_len fields out of rearm_data marker. > > - make ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec() not touch buf_len field at all > > (as all other RX functions behave). > > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > > --- > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 7 +++++-- > > lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c | 20 +++++++++++++++----- > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > > index 2e5fce5..bb88318 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > > @@ -179,6 +179,8 @@ const char *rte_get_tx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t mask); > > typedef void *MARKER[0]; /**< generic marker for a point in a structure */ > > typedef uint64_t MARKER64[0]; /**< marker that allows us to overwrite 8 bytes > > * with a single assignment */ > > +typedef uint8_t MARKER8[0]; /**< generic marker with 1B alignment */ > > + > > /** > > * The generic rte_mbuf, containing a packet mbuf. > > */ > > @@ -188,9 +190,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf { > > void *buf_addr; /**< Virtual address of segment buffer. */ > > phys_addr_t buf_physaddr; /**< Physical address of segment buffer. */ > > > > - /* next 8 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */ > > - MARKER64 rearm_data; > > uint16_t buf_len; /**< Length of segment buffer. */ > > + > > + /* next 6 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */ > > + MARKER8 rearm_data; > > uint16_t data_off; > > > > /** > > diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > > index 579bc46..d5fc0cc 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > > @@ -79,13 +79,22 @@ ixgbe_rxq_rearm(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) > > /* Initialize the mbufs in vector, process 2 mbufs in one loop */ > > for (i = 0; i < RTE_IXGBE_RXQ_REARM_THRESH; i += 2, rxep += 2) { > > __m128i vaddr0, vaddr1; > > + uintptr_t p0, p1; > > > > mb0 = rxep[0].mbuf; > > mb1 = rxep[1].mbuf; > > > > - /* flush mbuf with pkt template */ > > - mb0->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > > - mb1->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > > + /* > > + * Flush mbuf with pkt template. > > + * Data to be rearmed is 6 bytes long. > > + * Though, RX will overwrite ol_flags that are coming next > > + * anyway. So overwrite whole 8 bytes with one load: > > + * 6 bytes of rearm_data plus first 2 bytes of ol_flags. > > + */ > > + p0 = (uintptr_t)&mb0->rearm_data; > > + *(uint64_t *)p0 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > > + p1 = (uintptr_t)&mb1->rearm_data; > > + *(uint64_t *)p1 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > > > > /* load buf_addr(lo 64bit) and buf_physaddr(hi 64bit) */ > > vaddr0 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&(mb0->buf_addr)); > > @@ -732,14 +741,15 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops = { > > int > > ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) > > { > > + uintptr_t p; > > struct rte_mbuf mb_def = { .buf_addr = 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */ > > > > mb_def.nb_segs = 1; > > mb_def.data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM; > > - mb_def.buf_len = rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf); > > mb_def.port = rxq->port_id; > > rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1); > > - rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def.rearm_data); > > + p = (uintptr_t)&mb_def.rearm_data; > > + rxq->mbuf_initializer = *(uint64_t *)p; > > return 0; > > } > > > > > > The patch introduces writes on unaligned data, but we can assume no > performance penalty on intel hw, correct? > Yes to both: it introduces 64bit unaligned store. I run performance test on IVB board, didn't see any degradation. Konstantin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BD098-kPTMFJFq+rEu0RiL9chJVbfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length [not found] ` <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BD098-kPTMFJFq+rEu0RiL9chJVbfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-12-05 18:02 ` Thomas Monjalon 2014-12-05 18:03 ` Jean-Mickael Guerin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2014-12-05 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ananyev, Konstantin; +Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw Konstantin, It would be easier if you sent a v2 of the patchset from Jean-Mickael. So, the first patch would be included with your rework of the second patch. Please use --in-reply-to to make tracking from emails or archives easier. Thanks -- Thomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length [not found] ` <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BD098-kPTMFJFq+rEu0RiL9chJVbfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> 2014-12-05 18:02 ` Thomas Monjalon @ 2014-12-05 18:03 ` Jean-Mickael Guerin [not found] ` <5481F359.40007-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jean-Mickael Guerin @ 2014-12-05 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ananyev, Konstantin; +Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org On 05/12/2014 18:07, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jean-Mickael Guerin [mailto:jean-mickael.guerin-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] >> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 4:59 PM >> To: Ananyev, Konstantin >> Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length >> >> On 05/12/2014 16:20, Konstantin Ananyev wrote: >>> That's an alternative way to fix the problem described in the patch: >>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009394.html. >>> The main difference is: >>> - move buf_len fields out of rearm_data marker. >>> - make ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec() not touch buf_len field at all >>> (as all other RX functions behave). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> >>> --- >>> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 7 +++++-- >>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c | 20 +++++++++++++++----- >>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h >>> index 2e5fce5..bb88318 100644 >>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h >>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h >>> @@ -179,6 +179,8 @@ const char *rte_get_tx_ol_flag_name(uint64_t mask); >>> typedef void *MARKER[0]; /**< generic marker for a point in a structure */ >>> typedef uint64_t MARKER64[0]; /**< marker that allows us to overwrite 8 bytes >>> * with a single assignment */ >>> +typedef uint8_t MARKER8[0]; /**< generic marker with 1B alignment */ >>> + >>> /** >>> * The generic rte_mbuf, containing a packet mbuf. >>> */ >>> @@ -188,9 +190,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf { >>> void *buf_addr; /**< Virtual address of segment buffer. */ >>> phys_addr_t buf_physaddr; /**< Physical address of segment buffer. */ >>> >>> - /* next 8 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */ >>> - MARKER64 rearm_data; >>> uint16_t buf_len; /**< Length of segment buffer. */ >>> + >>> + /* next 6 bytes are initialised on RX descriptor rearm */ >>> + MARKER8 rearm_data; >>> uint16_t data_off; >>> >>> /** >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c >>> index 579bc46..d5fc0cc 100644 >>> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c >>> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c >>> @@ -79,13 +79,22 @@ ixgbe_rxq_rearm(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) >>> /* Initialize the mbufs in vector, process 2 mbufs in one loop */ >>> for (i = 0; i < RTE_IXGBE_RXQ_REARM_THRESH; i += 2, rxep += 2) { >>> __m128i vaddr0, vaddr1; >>> + uintptr_t p0, p1; >>> >>> mb0 = rxep[0].mbuf; >>> mb1 = rxep[1].mbuf; >>> >>> - /* flush mbuf with pkt template */ >>> - mb0->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer; >>> - mb1->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer; >>> + /* >>> + * Flush mbuf with pkt template. >>> + * Data to be rearmed is 6 bytes long. >>> + * Though, RX will overwrite ol_flags that are coming next >>> + * anyway. So overwrite whole 8 bytes with one load: >>> + * 6 bytes of rearm_data plus first 2 bytes of ol_flags. >>> + */ >>> + p0 = (uintptr_t)&mb0->rearm_data; >>> + *(uint64_t *)p0 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; >>> + p1 = (uintptr_t)&mb1->rearm_data; >>> + *(uint64_t *)p1 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; >>> >>> /* load buf_addr(lo 64bit) and buf_physaddr(hi 64bit) */ >>> vaddr0 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&(mb0->buf_addr)); >>> @@ -732,14 +741,15 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops = { >>> int >>> ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) >>> { >>> + uintptr_t p; >>> struct rte_mbuf mb_def = { .buf_addr = 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */ >>> >>> mb_def.nb_segs = 1; >>> mb_def.data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM; >>> - mb_def.buf_len = rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf); >>> mb_def.port = rxq->port_id; >>> rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1); >>> - rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def.rearm_data); >>> + p = (uintptr_t)&mb_def.rearm_data; >>> + rxq->mbuf_initializer = *(uint64_t *)p; >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> >> >> The patch introduces writes on unaligned data, but we can assume no >> performance penalty on intel hw, correct? >> > > Yes to both: > it introduces 64bit unaligned store. > I run performance test on IVB board, didn't see any degradation. > Konstantin > > OK fine by me: Acked-by: Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <5481F359.40007-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length [not found] ` <5481F359.40007-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-12-05 22:13 ` Thomas Monjalon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2014-12-05 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ananyev, Konstantin; +Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw 2014-12-05 19:03, Jean-Mickael Guerin: > On 05/12/2014 18:07, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > From: Jean-Mickael Guerin [mailto:jean-mickael.guerin-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] > >> On 05/12/2014 16:20, Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > >>> That's an alternative way to fix the problem described in the patch: > >>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-December/009394.html. > >>> The main difference is: > >>> - move buf_len fields out of rearm_data marker. > >>> - make ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec() not touch buf_len field at all > >>> (as all other RX functions behave). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > >> > >> The patch introduces writes on unaligned data, but we can assume no > >> performance penalty on intel hw, correct? > > > > Yes to both: > > it introduces 64bit unaligned store. > > I run performance test on IVB board, didn't see any degradation. > > Konstantin > > OK fine by me: > > Acked-by: Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Applied, even if the patch is RFC, it will be validated as part of -rc3. Thanks -- Thomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-12-05 22:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-12-05 15:20 [RFC PATCH] ixgbe: ixgbe_recv_pkts_vec shouldn't override mbuf buffer length Konstantin Ananyev [not found] ` <1417792834-20590-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 2014-12-05 16:59 ` Jean-Mickael Guerin [not found] ` <5481E456.1050001-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 2014-12-05 17:07 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [not found] ` <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BD098-kPTMFJFq+rEu0RiL9chJVbfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> 2014-12-05 18:02 ` Thomas Monjalon 2014-12-05 18:03 ` Jean-Mickael Guerin [not found] ` <5481F359.40007-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 2014-12-05 22:13 ` Thomas Monjalon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).