From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from proxy.6wind.com (host.76.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com [62.23.145.76]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6C2C658 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:10:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.16.0.195] (unknown [10.16.0.195]) by proxy.6wind.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C01823CEF; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:10:15 +0200 (CEST) To: "Hunt, David" , Jan Viktorin References: <1465919341-3209-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <1465976824-83823-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <20160615121358.5ef9f142@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> <57614043.9090603@intel.com> <57614402.6020708@6wind.com> <57614C41.1040107@intel.com> <57615D1F.40700@6wind.com> <5761600A.7030801@intel.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, shreyansh.jain@nxp.com From: Olivier MATZ Message-ID: <576161C5.6060709@6wind.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:10:13 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5761600A.7030801@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12 0/3] mempool: add external mempool manager 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: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:10:15 -0000 On 06/15/2016 04:02 PM, Hunt, David wrote: > > > On 15/6/2016 2:50 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> On 06/15/2016 02:38 PM, Hunt, David wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 15/6/2016 1:03 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 06/15/2016 01:47 PM, Hunt, David wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 15/6/2016 11:13 AM, Jan Viktorin wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've got one last question. Initially, I was interested in creating >>>>>> my own external memory provider based on a Linux Kernel driver. >>>>>> So, I've got an opened file descriptor that points to a device which >>>>>> can mmap a memory regions for me. >>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>> int fd = open("/dev/uio0" ...); >>>>>> ... >>>>>> rte_mempool *pool = rte_mempool_create_empty(...); >>>>>> rte_mempool_set_ops_byname(pool, "uio_allocator_ops"); >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not sure how to pass the file descriptor pointer. I thought it >>>>>> would >>>>>> be possible by the rte_mempool_alloc but it's not... Is it possible >>>>>> to solve this case? >>>>>> >>>>>> The allocator is device-specific. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>> This particular use case is not covered. >>>>> >>>>> We did discuss this before, and an opaque pointer was proposed, but >>>>> did >>>>> not make it in. >>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.networking.dpdk.devel/39821 >>>>> (and following emails in that thread) >>>>> >>>>> So, the options for this use case are as follows: >>>>> 1. Use the pool_data to pass data in to the alloc, then set the >>>>> pool_data pointer before coming back from alloc. (It's a bit of a >>>>> hack, >>>>> but means no code change). >>>>> 2. Add an extra parameter to the alloc function. The simplest way I >>>>> can >>>>> think of doing this is to >>>>> take the *opaque passed into rte_mempool_populate_phys, and pass it on >>>>> into the alloc function. >>>>> This will have minimal impact on the public API,s as there is >>>>> already an >>>>> opaque there in the _populate_ funcs, we're just >>>>> reusing it for the alloc. >>>>> >>>>> Do others think option 2 is OK to add this at this late stage? Even if >>>>> the patch set has already been ACK'd? >>>> >>>> Jan's use-case looks to be relevant. >>>> >>>> What about changing: >>>> >>>> rte_mempool_set_ops_byname(struct rte_mempool *mp, const char *name) >>>> >>>> into: >>>> >>>> rte_mempool_set_ops(struct rte_mempool *mp, const char *name, >>>> void *opaque) >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> The opaque pointer would be saved in mempool structure, and used >>>> when the mempool is populated (calling mempool_ops_alloc). >>>> The type of the structure pointed by the opaque has to be defined >>>> (and documented) into each mempool_ops manager. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, that was another option, which has the additional impact of >>> needing an >>> opaque added to the mempool struct. If we use the opaque from the >>> _populate_ >>> function, we use it straight away in the alloc, no storage needed. >>> >>> Also, do you think we need to go ahead with this change, or can we add >>> it later as an >>> improvement? >> >> The opaque in populate_phys() is already used for something else >> (i.e. the argument for the free callback of the memory chunk). >> I'm afraid it could cause confusion to have it used for 2 different >> things. >> >> About the change, I think it could be good to have it in 16.11, >> because it will probably change the API, and we should avoid to >> change it each version ;) >> >> So I'd vote to have it in the patchset for consistency. > > Sure, we should avoid breaking API just after we created it. :) > > OK, here's a slightly different proposal. > > If we add a string, to the _ops_byname, yes, that will work for Jan's case. > However, if we add a void*, that allow us the flexibility of passing > anything we > want. We can then store the void* in the mempool struct as void > *pool_config, > so that when the alloc gets called, it can access whatever is stored at > *pool_config > and do the correct initialisation/allocation. In Jan's use case, this > can simply be typecast > to a string. In future cases, it can be a struct, which could including > new flags. Yep, agree. But not sure I'm seeing the difference with what I proposed. > > I think that change is minimal enough to be low risk at this stage. > > Thoughts? Agree. Thanks! Olivier