Hello, I don't have full knowledge of how to work rte_mempool_ops_get_count() but there is another comment about it. Maybe it relates. /* * due to race condition (access to len is not locked), the * total can be greater than size... so fix the result */ Best regards. Morten Brørup , 16 May 2023 Sal, 19:04 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, 16 May 2023 17.24 > > > > On Tue, 16 May 2023 13:41:46 +0000 > > Yasin CANER wrote: > > > > > From: Yasin CANER > > > > > > after a while working rte_mempool_avail_count function returns bigger > > > than mempool size that cause miscalculation rte_mempool_in_use_count. > > > > > > it helps to avoid miscalculation rte_mempool_in_use_count. > > > > > > Bugzilla ID: 1229 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yasin CANER > > > > An alternative that avoids some code duplication. > > > > diff --git a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c > > index cf5dea2304a7..2406b112e7b0 100644 > > --- a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c > > +++ b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c > > @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ rte_mempool_avail_count(const struct rte_mempool > > *mp) > > count = rte_mempool_ops_get_count(mp); > > > > if (mp->cache_size == 0) > > - return count; > > + goto exit; > > This bug can only occur here (i.e. with cache_size==0) if > rte_mempool_ops_get_count() returns an incorrect value. The bug should be > fixed there instead. > > > > > for (lcore_id = 0; lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE; lcore_id++) > > count += mp->local_cache[lcore_id].len; > > @@ -1019,6 +1019,7 @@ rte_mempool_avail_count(const struct rte_mempool > > *mp) > > * due to race condition (access to len is not locked), the > > * total can be greater than size... so fix the result > > */ > > +exit: > > if (count > mp->size) > > return mp->size; > > return count; >