2014-12-04 10:32, Neil Horman: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 02:47:03PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2014-12-04 08:29, Neil Horman: > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:59:31PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > Because of different cache line size, the alignment of struct > > > > > rte_kni_mbuf in rte_kni_common.h doesn't work on IBM Power. This patch > > > > > changed from 64 to RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE micro to do the alignment. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Zhu <chaozhu at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > > > > > > > > Applied > > > > > > > Woah! Slow down here, I'm not sure if this makes sense to fix his way. > > > The > > > exact same ifndef/define/endif construct is used for this macro in > > > rte_memory.h. > > > Currently their defined to the same vaule, but if that ever changes, this > > > macro > > > will return different values based on the order in which header files are > > > included. That doesn't seem appropriate at all. > > > > I agree (was my comment) but the patch was applied as a hot fix. > > A better fix has to be found for DPDK 2.0. > > Do you agree this fix is enough for DPDK 1.8 release? > > > I really don't like the idea of hacks like this being used.
It's not really a hack to replace a hardcoded value by a constant. I think you should agree it's better (but not perfect). > Truthfully, I would rather the KNI just not be built on power for now, > it is after all a new feature for which not everything works yet (e.g. the > acl library and the ixgbe rxtx vec code). > With this in place, KNI will build now, but it means that anything > changes cache line sizes until it gets fixed properly runs the risk of > introducing wierd behavioral issues at compile time. It was also the case before: 64 was hardcoded for KNI. > I'm also concerned about the fact that, since we have no bug tracker for DPDK, > indicating that there will be an improved fix in 2.0 isn't really a guarantee, > in that it requires that someone remember to do it. Please be confident that I keep it noted and I'll do what I can to have it properly fixed. By the way, submitting a fix now would store the need in patchwork. > > > > I wonder if we could try to guess the cache line size instead of > > > > configuring it in many places. > > > > Maybe we could use something like sysconf(_SC_LEVEL1_DCACHE_LINESIZE)? > > > > > > > This is a good idea, but I think its a bit broken for a few reasons: > > > > > > 1) _SC_LEVEL1_DCACHE_LINESIZE I don't think is POSIX mandated, so there > > > is every > > > possibility that the above won't work on BSD > > > > > > 2) While getting the cache line size dynamically is a great idea, dpdk has > > > several locations that size structures based on processor cache line > > > size, which > > > implicitly requires a static cache line definition. > > > > It can be guessed dynamically in the first build step (kind of configure). > > > That would work, though that seems like cause to really start redesigning the > build system to use autoconf/automake so we can run utilities to do that sort > of > thing more easily (not opposed to that mind you, just illustrating that its > more > work) I'm convinced we need to work on the build system but it's another discussion for next weeks. Speaking about that, the AF_PACKET PMD cannot be enabled because dependencies are not checked before building it. > > > It seems the right thing to do, in my mind is to define > > > RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE per > > > arch (perhaps in common/include/arch/<arch>/rte_<something>.h), then just > > > let > > > the build break if a given arch doesn't define it (i.e. make definig that > > > value > > > an arch reqirement). > > > > It's the other option. For IBM Power, it's currently overwritten in the > > Makefile: > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/mk/arch/ppc_64/rte.vars.mk > > > Thats a sensible solution in my mind, though it is limited by the assumption > that any given arch has only a single cache line size (I dno't think thats a > problem, but it might be). If it is, the dynamic solution above is superior. I think we won't solve the hypothetical problem of heterogeneous CPUs in first step. I'd like to start with your proposal of a arch variable. -- Thomas