From: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Shahaf Shuler" <shahafs@nvidia.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)" <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: RE: questions about pinned external buffers
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 08:22:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <MN6PR12MB8567949B130049FDF44051E7DF182@MN6PR12MB8567.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F99F@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
Hi, Morten
> Question 1:
> Please confirm that the mbuf's pinned external buffer's refcnt is supposed to
> be 1 when an mbuf is returned to the mempool?
...
> + rte_mbuf_ext_refcnt_read(m->shinfo) == 1)));
I think we can add this extra check and neglect the light performance impact in debug version.
> Question 2:
> Could this assertion be moved to __rte_mbuf_raw_sanity_check()?
Looks like it could, but we should be careful about side effects in
__rte_mbuf_raw_sanity_check(), it is exposed in rte_mbuf.h to users
(also as legacy MBUF_RAW_ALLOC_CHECK). But I have no strong objections.
With best regards,
Slava
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2025 2:12 PM
> To: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
> <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> (EXTERNAL) <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Subject: questions about pinned external buffers
>
> Pinned external buffers were introduced with this patch:
> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h?id=6ef1107ad4
> c6d4fcb6be627367ee0b97bb13e822
>
> Question 1:
> Please confirm that the mbuf's pinned external buffer's refcnt is supposed to
> be 1 when an mbuf is returned to the mempool?
>
> If so, the below assertion should be updated for completion:
>
> rte_mbuf_raw_free(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> {
> RTE_ASSERT(!RTE_MBUF_CLONED(m) &&
> - (!RTE_MBUF_HAS_EXTBUF(m) ||
> RTE_MBUF_HAS_PINNED_EXTBUF(m)));
> + (!RTE_MBUF_HAS_EXTBUF(m) ||
> + (RTE_MBUF_HAS_PINNED_EXTBUF(m) &&
> + rte_mbuf_ext_refcnt_read(m->shinfo) == 1)));
> __rte_mbuf_raw_sanity_check(m);
> rte_mempool_put(m->pool, m);
> }
>
> The increased performance cost should be acceptable for debug builds (i.e.
> with assertions enabled).
>
> Question 2:
> Could this assertion be moved to __rte_mbuf_raw_sanity_check()?
>
> I'm working on a new rte_mbuf_raw_free_bulk() function, for use with
> RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_MBUF_FAST_FREE; and if the assertion is not moved
> to __rte_mbuf_raw_sanity_check(), it needs to be copy-pasted into the new
> raw_free_bulk() function too.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-14 8:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-09 12:11 Morten Brørup
2025-01-14 8:22 ` Slava Ovsiienko [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=MN6PR12MB8567949B130049FDF44051E7DF182@MN6PR12MB8567.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=viacheslavo@nvidia.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=shahafs@nvidia.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).