From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6237E28 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:06:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.9/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s96GDHb3004348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 09:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ALA-MBB.corp.ad.wrs.com ([169.254.1.18]) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.189.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 09:13:17 -0700 From: "Wiles, Roger Keith" To: "ANANYEV, KONSTANTIN" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk() Thread-Index: AQHP4UOohbitp8XoLEu9K6u9lPldRZwjnJoAgAAAzQCAABEUAIAABTUA Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:13:16 +0000 Message-ID: <545592DF-3306-49F7-8685-10BD021B9854@windriver.com> References: <1412464229-125521-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@windriver.com> <1412464229-125521-2-git-send-email-keith.wiles@windriver.com> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B03441BE9E@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <5DD5FF6E-C045-4764-A5B1-877C88B023F5@windriver.com> <20141006145330.GA2548@BRICHA3-MOBL> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725821390E75@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725821390E75@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.25.40.166] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <362AD21D53A45E419F442A691E75F5D1@local> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk() X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:06:10 -0000 On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson >> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 3:54 PM >> To: Wiles, Roger Keith (Wind River) >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_allo= c_bulk() and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk() >>=20 >> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 03:50:38PM +0100, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote: >>> Hi Bruce, >>>=20 >>> Do I need to reject the for the new routines or just make sure the vect= or driver does not get updated to use those routines? >>>=20 >>=20 >> The new routines are probably useful in the general case. I see no issue >> with having them in the code, so long as the vector driver is not modifi= ed >> to use them. >=20 > I 'd say the same thing for non-vector RX/TX PMD code-paths too. >=20 > BTW, are the new functions comments valid? >=20 > + * @return > + * - 0 if the number of mbufs allocated was ok > + * - <0 is an ERROR. > + */ > +static inline int __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk( >=20 > Though, as I can see __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk() returns either: > - number of allocated mbuf (cnt) > - negative error code Let me fix up the comments. >=20 > And: > + * @return > + * - The number of valid mbufs pointers in the m_list array. > + * - Zero if the request cnt could not be allocated. > + */ > +static inline int __attribute__((always_inline)) > +rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, struct rte_mbuf *m_list[]= , int16_t cnt) > +{ > + return __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk(mp, m_list, cnt); > +} >=20 > Shouldn't be "less than zero if the request cnt could not be allocated."? >=20 > BTW, is there any point to have __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk() at all? > After all, as you are calling rte_pktmbuf_reset() inside it, it doesn't l= ook __raw__ any more. > Might be just put its content into rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() and get rid o= f it. >=20 I was just following the non-bulk routine style __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc(), but= I can pull that into a single routine. > Also wonder, what is the advantage of having multiple counters inside the= same loop? > i.e: > + for(i =3D 0; i < cnt; i++) { > + m =3D *m_list++; >=20 > Why not just: >=20 > for(i =3D 0; i < cnt; i++) { > m =3D &m_list[i]; >=20 > Same for free: > + while(npkts--) > + rte_pktmbuf_free(*m_list++); >=20 > While not just: > for (i =3D 0; i < npkts; i++) > rte_pktmbuf_free(&m_list[i]); Maybe I have it wrong or the compilers are doing the right thing now, but a= t one point the &m_list[i] would cause the compiler to generate a shift or = multiple of =91i=92 and then add it to the base of m_list. If that is not t= he case anymore then I can update the code as you suggested. Using the *m_l= ist++ just adds the size of a pointer to a register and continues. >=20 > Konstantin >=20 >>=20 >> /Bruce >>=20 >>> Thanks >>> ++Keith >>>=20 >>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:56 AM, Richardson, Bruce wrote: >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Keith Wiles >>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 12:10 AM >>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org >>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_alloc= _bulk() >>>>> and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk() >>>>>=20 >>>>> Minor helper routines to mirror the mempool routines and remove the c= ode >>>>> from applications. The ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c routine could be changed to u= se >>>>> the ret_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() routine inplace of rte_mempool_get_bulk(= ). >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> I believe such a change would cause a performance regression, as the e= xtra init code in the alloc_bulk() function would take >> additional cycles and is not needed. The vector routines use the mempool= function directly, so that there is no overhead of mbuf >> initialization, as the vector routines use their additional "knowledge" = of what the mbufs will be used for to init them in a faster manner >> than can be done inside the mbuf library. >>>>=20 >>>> /Bruce >>>>=20 >>>>> Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles >>>>> --- >>>>> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 77 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+) >>>>>=20 >>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h >>>>> index 1c6e115..f298621 100644 >>>>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h >>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h >>>>> @@ -546,6 +546,41 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_reset(struct rte_= mbuf >>>>> *m) >>>>> } >>>>>=20 >>>>> /** >>>>> + * @internal Allocate a list of mbufs from mempool *mp*. >>>>> + * The use of that function is reserved for RTE internal needs. >>>>> + * Please use rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(). >>>>> + * >>>>> + * @param mp >>>>> + * The mempool from which mbuf is allocated. >>>>> + * @param m_list >>>>> + * The array to place the allocated rte_mbufs pointers. >>>>> + * @param cnt >>>>> + * The number of mbufs to allocate >>>>> + * @return >>>>> + * - 0 if the number of mbufs allocated was ok >>>>> + * - <0 is an ERROR. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +static inline int __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, = struct >>>>> rte_mbuf *m_list[], int cnt) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct rte_mbuf *m; >>>>> + int ret; >>>>> + >>>>> + ret =3D rte_mempool_get_bulk(mp, (void **)m_list, cnt); >>>>> + if ( ret =3D=3D 0 ) { >>>>> + int i; >>>>> + for(i =3D 0; i < cnt; i++) { >>>>> + m =3D *m_list++; >>>>> +#ifdef RTE_MBUF_REFCNT >>>>> + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1); >>>>> +#endif /* RTE_MBUF_REFCNT */ >>>>> + rte_pktmbuf_reset(m); >>>>> + } >>>>> + ret =3D cnt; >>>>> + } >>>>> + return ret; >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +/** >>>>> * Allocate a new mbuf from a mempool. >>>>> * >>>>> * This new mbuf contains one segment, which has a length of 0. The po= inter >>>>> @@ -671,6 +706,32 @@ __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(struct rte_mbuf *m) >>>>> } >>>>>=20 >>>>> /** >>>>> + * Allocate a list of mbufs from a mempool into a mbufs array. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * This mbuf list contains one segment per mbuf, which has a length = of 0. The >>>>> pointer >>>>> + * to data is initialized to have some bytes of headroom in the buff= er >>>>> + * (if buffer size allows). >>>>> + * >>>>> + * The routine is just a simple wrapper routine to reduce code in th= e application >>>>> and >>>>> + * provide a cleaner API for multiple mbuf requests. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * @param mp >>>>> + * The mempool from which the mbuf is allocated. >>>>> + * @param m_list >>>>> + * An array of mbuf pointers, cnt must be less then or equal to th= e size of the >>>>> list. >>>>> + * @param cnt >>>>> + * Number of slots in the m_list array to fill. >>>>> + * @return >>>>> + * - The number of valid mbufs pointers in the m_list array. >>>>> + * - Zero if the request cnt could not be allocated. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +static inline int __attribute__((always_inline)) >>>>> +rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, struct rte_mbuf *m_li= st[], >>>>> int16_t cnt) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + return __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk(mp, m_list, cnt); >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +/** >>>>> * Free a segment of a packet mbuf into its original mempool. >>>>> * >>>>> * Free an mbuf, without parsing other segments in case of chained >>>>> @@ -708,6 +769,22 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_free(struct rte_m= buf >>>>> *m) >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>>=20 >>>>> +/** >>>>> + * Free a list of packet mbufs back into its original mempool. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * Free a list of mbufs by calling rte_pktmbuf_free() in a loop as a= wrapper >>>>> function. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * @param m_list >>>>> + * An array of rte_mbuf pointers to be freed. >>>>> + * @param npkts >>>>> + * Number of packets to free in list. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +static inline void rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(struct rte_mbuf *m_list[], = int16_t >>>>> npkts) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + while(npkts--) >>>>> + rte_pktmbuf_free(*m_list++); >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> #ifdef RTE_MBUF_REFCNT >>>>>=20 >>>>> /** >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.1.0 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile = 972-213-5533 Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-= 213-5533