From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3F7A034C for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 02:23:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73584069F; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 02:23:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-lf1-f50.google.com (mail-lf1-f50.google.com [209.85.167.50]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2EC40041 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 02:23:11 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lf1-f50.google.com with SMTP id p27so19470831lfa.1 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 17:23:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vPKAxXtA1rt/sDXAtRLg0W9RAgEhmcQr6DMOv1fNi+s=; b=CYBzT/rO+w9Zq6ms99hzSeNyaMgv+PJF6FzivdgnNA+Vz8+XxZ2FmVZpd+JP/Ga206 MfsEV0RI/HoDaD7ScK3ne7xhccOd5bRTDhy2mj+nzfg34qazsSE5zAdAxiROMuvYQxfB 6HUsHRwFRzHI1ilaH81SL92Hk0CO5YYIGEhXUUZ8kusGRzuDbvEwbhXRSLktFX7DsmFC Z3ewLF4c4aDOcpIp1KyclIb1MS3PFJC4ng839q/WlYbcV3AR29z3tLhYXDZ07ogjeUID nV9D+6Anoi0fo1ZA6x7jvrBVZYhJmHyra9o9ZteGpKMg9J77BdyAEGGoBGfTjJyZ2DFc HnVQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vPKAxXtA1rt/sDXAtRLg0W9RAgEhmcQr6DMOv1fNi+s=; b=XfF4HkJYBA4XYhpfkZiUoAnHt7O/ORUKNFDpchvZ/uXBdnWnlcGp33dSxFPCcZ55G/ diC8OX227m0Fj6beZnBByHAZR+TYKQc+ef6jbvI+6WlloKZ8eUkviIZRToQiZhU8JLI/ 98wC7hOpss7cTLCcd8G7X7Slm5BQaHZW6pH6zD1TPc3oMN9VdZdzAeunaverAOiQZsAy huFqTaHE0n0OLmQeYVejxskUOJZ2QqGVEFecJqGuUe20CqLq3oevEHRe6QALjVO1OFNJ hQf9RVhGj6IB1Y6Ript7zc0ub/wBdjQTNUtdttw29bJXMXxmsbGZeh0gk/PC9Q76FXup Q0Uw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533sYmbNm3wuQI3THlhj0ITw4Kz9mlX7VndDpPlSzJhYu5boKPoW sTVeBcEH01wv9fgp9dknmUc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzleObv4e85adjBkhTqbpW8l3jaxYHBWGM5V0oPvmhSkcHqhMKQkbAj5MbKIkxfLE49o07DYw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:6cb:: with SMTP id u11mr10586919lff.1.1643505790532; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 17:23:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from sovereign (broadband-37-110-65-23.ip.moscow.rt.ru. [37.110.65.23]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u22sm3075355lfc.80.2022.01.29.17.23.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 29 Jan 2022 17:23:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 04:23:09 +0300 From: Dmitry Kozlyuk To: fwefew 4t4tg <7532yahoo@gmail.com> Cc: users@dpdk.org Subject: Re: allocating a mempool w/ rte_pktmbuf_pool_create() Message-ID: <20220130042309.5e590857@sovereign> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.18.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org 2022-01-29 18:46 (UTC-0500), fwefew 4t4tg: [...] > 1. Does cache_size include or exclude data_room_size? > 2. Does cache_size include or exclude sizeof(struct rtre_mbuf)? > 3. Does cache size include or exclude RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM? Cache size is measured in the number of elements, irrelevant of their size. It is not a memory size, so the questions above are not really meaningful. > 4. What lcore is the allocated memory pinned to? Memory is associated with a NUMA node (DPDK calls it "socket"), not an lcore. Each lcore belongs to one NUMA node, see rte_lcore_to_socket_id(). > The lcore of the caller > when this method is run? The answer here is important. If it's the lcore of > the caller when called, this routine should be called in the lcore's entry > point so it's on the right lcore the memory is intended. Calling it on the > lcore that happens to be running main, for example, could have a bad side > effect if it's different from where the memory will be ultimately used. The NUMA node is controlled by "socket_id" parameter. Your considerations are correct, often you should create separate mempools for each NUMA node to avoid this performance issue. (You should also consider which NUMA node each device belongs to.) > 5. Which one of the formal arguments represents tail room indicated in > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/mbuf_lib.html#figure-mbuf1 [...] > 5. Unknown. Perhaps if you want private data which corresponds to tail room > in the diagram above one has to call rte_mempool_create() instead and focus > on private_data_size. Incorrect; tail room is simply an unused part at the end of the data room. Private data is for the entire mempool, not for individual mbufs. > Mempool creation is like malloc: you request the total number of absolute > bytes required. The API will not add or remove bytes to the number you > specify. Therefore the number you give must be inclusive of all needs > including your payload, any DPDK overheader, headroom, tailroom, and so on. > DPDK is not adding to the number you give for its own purposes. Clearer? > Perhaps ... but what needs? Read on ... On the contrary: rte_pktmbuf_pool_create() takes the amount of usable memory (dataroom) and adds space for rte_mbuf and the headroom. Furthermore, the underlying rte_mempool_create() ensures element (mbuf) alignment, may spread the elements between pages, etc. [...] > No. I might not. I might have half my TXQ and RXQs dealing with tiny > mbufs/packets, and the other half dealing with completely different traffic > of a completely different size and structure. So I might want memory pool > allocation to be done on a smaller scale e.g. per RXQ/TXQ/lcore. DPDK > doesn't seem to permit this. You can create different mempools for each purpose and specify the proper mempool to rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(). When creating them, you can and should also take NUMA into account. Take a look at init_mem() function of examples/l3fwd.