> > > > +               /** Fast path area cache line 3. */
> > > > +#ifdef RTE_GRAPH_PROFILE
> > > > +               struct {
> > > > +                       uint64_t calls;     /**< Calls processing
> > > resp. 0 or 1 objects. */
> > > > +                       uint64_t cycles;    /**< Cycles spent
> > > processing resp. 0 or 1 objects. */
> > > > +               } usage_stats[2];       /**< Usage when this node
> > > processed 0 or 1 objects. */
> > > > +               uint64_t full_burst_calls;  /**< Calls processing a
> > > full burst of objects. */
> > > > +               uint64_t full_burst_cycles; /**< Cycles spent
> > > processing a full burst of objects. */
> > > > +               uint64_t half_burst_calls;  /**< Calls processing a
> > > half burst of objects. */
> > > > +               uint64_t half_burst_cycles; /**< Cycles spent
> > > processing a half burst of objects. */
> > > > +               /** Fast path area cache line 4. */
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Is it an ABI breakage?
Can you consider one array for all cases?
also, instead of adding cacheline for this profiling data, can we
share with line 1 that used solely for xstats?

Reply via email to