[PATCH v5] mbuf: optimize segment prefree

[Konstantin Ananyev]

> > From: Konstantin Ananyev [mailto:konstantin.ananyev at huawei.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2025 10.51
> >
> > > -#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) \
> > > -	(!((mb)->ol_flags & (RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL)))
> > > + *
> > > + * Note: Macro optimized for code size.
> > > + *
> > > + * The plain macro would be:
> > > + *      #define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb) \
> > > + *          (!((mb)->ol_flags & (RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT |
> > RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL)))
> > > + *
> > > + * The flags RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT and RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL are both in
> > the
> > > MSB (most significant
> > > + * byte) of the 64-bit ol_flags field, so we only compare this one
> > byte instead of all
> > > 64 bits.
> > > + *
> > > + * E.g., GCC version 16.0.0 20251019 (experimental) generates the
> > following code
> > > for x86-64.
> > > + *
> > > + * With the plain macro, 17 bytes of instructions:
> > > + *      movabs rax,0x6000000000000000       // 10 bytes
> > > + *      and    rax,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x18]     // 4 bytes
> > > + *      sete   al                           // 3 bytes
> > > + * With this optimized macro, only 7 bytes of instructions:
> > > + *      test   BYTE PTR [rdi+0x1f],0x60     // 4 bytes
> > > + *      sete   al                           // 3 bytes
> > > + */
> > > +#if RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > > +/* On little endian architecture, the MSB of a 64-bit integer is at
> > byte offset 7. */
> > > +#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb)     !(((const char *)(&(mb)-
> > >ol_flags))[7] & 0x60)
> > > +#elif RTE_BYTE_ORDER == RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> > > +/* On big endian architecture, the MSB of a 64-bit integer is at
> > byte offset 0. */
> > > +#define RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(mb)     !(((const char *)(&(mb)-
> > >ol_flags))[0] & 0x60)
> >
> > A stupid q: why then not simply do:
> > (mb->ol_flags >> 56) & 0x60
> > then?
> > Should help to all these LE/BE casts, etc.
> 
> GCC is too stupid for that too.
> 
> Playing around with Godbolt shows that
> 	return !((char)(p[3] >> 56) & 0x60);
> becomes
> 	movzx  eax,BYTE PTR [rdi+0x1f]	// 4 bytes
> 	test   al,0x60				// 2 bytes
> Instead of simply
> 	test   BYTE PTR [rdi+0x1f],0x60	// 4 bytes

And these 2 extra bytes in instructions, are that really that critical?
My guess, we wouldn't notice any real diff here.
But if it really is, can I ask you to create a new define for 0x60,
to avoid hardcoded constants in the code?
Might be something  like
#define RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT_EXTERNAL_1B ...
or so. 
Konstantin

> Good suggestion, though.
> 
> >
> > > +#endif
> > > +/* Verify the optimization above. */
> > > +static_assert((RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) ==
> > > UINT64_C(0x60) << (7 * CHAR_BIT),
> > > +	"(RTE_MBUF_F_INDIRECT | RTE_MBUF_F_EXTERNAL) is not 0x60 at
> > MSB");
> > >
> > >  /** Uninitialized or unspecified port. */
> > >  #define RTE_MBUF_PORT_INVALID UINT16_MAX
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0