> From: saeed bishara [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, 23 June 2026 10.34 > > > > > > + /** 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?
Ack. > also, instead of adding cacheline for this profiling data, can we > share with line 1 that used solely for xstats? This profiling data is 4 indexes * 2 values * 8-byte fields, so one cache line in itself.
