From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3465A58F4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  9 Feb 2015 18:52:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214]
 helo=[192.168.0.10])
 by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128)
 (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1YKsZ0-0006nv-C1; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:56:08 +0100
Message-ID: <54D8F3C8.4000101@6wind.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:52:08 +0100
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Liang, Cunming" <cunming.liang@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <1422491072-5114-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com>
 <1422842559-13617-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com>
 <1422842559-13617-15-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com>
 <54D7C099.60009@6wind.com>
 <D0158A423229094DA7ABF71CF2FA0DA3118D7F20@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0158A423229094DA7ABF71CF2FA0DA3118D7F20@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 14/17] mempool: add support to non-EAL
	thread
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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:52:22 -0000

Hi,

On 02/09/2015 03:41 PM, Liang, Cunming wrote:
>>>  #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG
>>> -#define __MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD(mp, name, n) do {			\
>>> -		unsigned __lcore_id = rte_lcore_id();		\
>>> -		mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_objs += n;		\
>>> -		mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_bulk += 1;		\
>>> +#define __MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD(mp, name, n) do {                    \
>>> +		unsigned __lcore_id = rte_lcore_id();           \
>>> +		if (__lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE) {               \
>>> +			mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_objs += n;	\
>>> +			mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_bulk += 1;	\
>>> +		}                                               \
>>
>> Does it mean that we have no statistics for non-EAL threads?
>> (same question for rings and timers in the next patches)
> [LCM] Yes, it is in this patch set, mainly focus on EAL thread and make sure no running issue on non-EAL thread.
> For full non-EAL function, will have other patch set to enhance non-EAL thread as the 2nd step.

OK

>>> @@ -952,7 +955,8 @@ __mempool_get_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, void
>> **obj_table,
>>>  	uint32_t cache_size = mp->cache_size;
>>>
>>>  	/* cache is not enabled or single consumer */
>>> -	if (unlikely(cache_size == 0 || is_mc == 0 || n >= cache_size))
>>> +	if (unlikely(cache_size == 0 || is_mc == 0 ||
>>> +		     n >= cache_size || lcore_id >= RTE_MAX_LCORE))
>>>  		goto ring_dequeue;
>>>
>>>  	cache = &mp->local_cache[lcore_id];
>>>
>>
>> What is the performance impact of adding this test?
> [LCM] By perf in unit test, it's almost the same. But haven't measure EAL thread and non-EAL thread share the same mempool.


When you say "unit test", are you talking about mempool tests from
"make test"? Do you have some numbers to share?