From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8EF8032
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 18:30:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23])
by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2014 09:19:27 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,516,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="632751597"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.34])
by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 04 Dec 2014 09:19:25 -0800
Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:19:24 +0025
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:19:24 +0000
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20141204171924.GB7732@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1417703181-23093-1-git-send-email-jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com>
<20141204151500.GC9300@bricha3-MOBL3>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BCA80@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
<4349408.QROSJAq1DS@xps13>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BCAE4@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213BCB11@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
<20141204165847.GA7732@bricha3-MOBL3> <548095CD.5080607@6wind.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <548095CD.5080607@6wind.com>
Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: don't override mbuf buffer length
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:30:37 -0000
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 06:11:41PM +0100, Jean-Mickael Guerin wrote:
> >>Which makes me think, that we probably shouldn't overwrite buf_len by rxq->mbuf_initializer.
> >>
> >I believe that it is perfectly safe to do so. All buffers from a mempool are meant
> >to be the same size, therefore reading the length of one buffer should tell you
> >what size all buffers are. If we do hit a scenario where we do need to support
> >variable size buffers from a single mempool, we can do that via the older unoptimized
> >code paths, I think, since it's a definite edge case.
> >
>
> I agree, and there is a place to store some values unique for all mbufs in a
> pool:
>
> struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private {
> uint16_t mbuf_data_room_size; /**< Size of data space in each
> mbuf.*/
> };
>
> We could add a new field mbuf_buf_len here, it looks definitely better than
> new callbacks in rte_mempool.
>
> What do you think?
I think it's overkill.
I like the original suggest to allocate a buffer and pull the length settings from
there. Just add the checking so that if the allocation fails the whole setup fails.
If we can't allocate one mbuf from a pool, it's a pretty catastrophic error that
needs to be flagged ASAP. I wouldn't look to do anything up and above that.
/Bruce