Hi Ferruh, In my case, the traffic is not large, so I can't see the impact. I also tested under high load(>2Mpps with 2 DPDK cores and 2 kernel threads) and found no significant difference in performance either. I think the reason should be that it will not run to 'kni_fifo_count(kni->alloc_q) == 0' under high load. On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 8:47 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 12/30/2022 4:23 AM, Yangchao Zhou wrote: > > In some scenarios, mbufs returned by rte_kni_rx_burst are not freed > > immediately. So kni_allocate_mbufs may be failed, but we don't know. > > > > Even worse, when alloc_q is completely exhausted, kni_net_tx in > > rte_kni.ko will drop all tx packets. kni_allocate_mbufs is never > > called again, even if the mbufs are eventually freed. > > > > In this patch, we try to allocate mbufs for alloc_q when it is empty. > > > > According to historical experience, the performance bottleneck of KNI > > is offen the usleep_range of kni thread in rte_kni.ko. > > The check of kni_fifo_count is trivial and the cost should be acceptable. > > > > Hi Yangchao, > > Are you observing any performance impact with this change in you use case? > > > > Fixes: 3e12a98fe397 ("kni: optimize Rx burst") > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Yangchao Zhou > > --- > > lib/kni/rte_kni.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/kni/rte_kni.c b/lib/kni/rte_kni.c > > index 8ab6c47153..bfa6a001ff 100644 > > --- a/lib/kni/rte_kni.c > > +++ b/lib/kni/rte_kni.c > > @@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ rte_kni_rx_burst(struct rte_kni *kni, struct > rte_mbuf **mbufs, unsigned int num) > > { > > unsigned int ret = kni_fifo_get(kni->tx_q, (void **)mbufs, num); > > > > - /* If buffers removed, allocate mbufs and then put them into > alloc_q */ > > - if (ret) > > + /* If buffers removed or alloc_q is empty, allocate mbufs and then > put them into alloc_q */ > > + if (ret || (kni_fifo_count(kni->alloc_q) == 0)) > > kni_allocate_mbufs(kni); > > > > return ret; > >