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 439FEA0547 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:48:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F32410D7; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:48:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED87740685 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:48:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3505C00E5; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 06:48:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 29 Sep 2021 06:48:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= TzjBFM4fJq8YM/yjP7sfwqx/fr3KhQuXwn3xd5isPOQ=; b=KB8TevgSTSPHG5Us /p3I7t6XaElouVFNE1rA2gIkbxF93jc7h7wxBObahLsx5Ni2u3I9V2KQn3tUNLtH v8BEioZrc6WsnV9uZ28xabldMdkP8bxhMRwJiA+cXoAKOSqOjneqM1KqAOcZIpIr XHiN951OyTWUgKXesgHAhQ93F05bgYIX15OY0IXHTX9Zp2XNQ8dT6oM2/QWDc5z2 PSgo6Oyyx2FzPhW8nCoMjPPf0WxAB5Wn0Jl46Ba54Y+iutN1hpt+oy2FJbY2v5Iy 73KDuggqdSmKqDJl8WbVshxfUp+HB3pQhuiQO6v7dht4KUt9lMhmulBoaXouFiap bKeYeA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=TzjBFM4fJq8YM/yjP7sfwqx/fr3KhQuXwn3xd5isP OQ=; b=P2MKE4IgYfcTc+AIigh+0KrUGKBAoBL+BRESpA2Wn3YIh8ez4EHvga05t wSnUy4o7GswnJFEx8NofzwhVhF6/4hOzhN3CWx0M6404my7Slj+WBSvzcjcuJ/Dw zdMAoqMmDqdhzwyoUJXvO3YP2Vcw66/Nzw9TGAeKXQN6lxkL3zFqzHKFTg1uaryt vSRghYudqncv6GgvpQFmllCuAQ7BJfqAxsXCwBdH0lChkrEcHpD4wQMvjmw0phPI 0c5RrJnazUvDju6+C8uwbKl0fA0bFnWlh6lNu7Ah9VjfN1xSYleiBE7uz9QnxRQq aK+KlJrxLZAkwksGIo7Pjpx9HQclQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudekvddgfeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfure dttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshes mhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefge elgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueeiiedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrd hnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 06:48:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: topperxin Cc: "users@dpdk.org" , olivier.matz@6wind.com, andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] what's the cache size of rte_mempool_create()? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:48:24 +0200 Message-ID: <8006744.t41pDv0jej@thomas> In-Reply-To: <5a53ec0f.4a37.17bc4b38e33.Coremail.topperxin@126.com> References: <5a53ec0f.4a37.17bc4b38e33.Coremail.topperxin@126.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 +Cc mempool maintainers 08/09/2021 11:18, topperxin: > HI list > A question about the value of cache size of rte_mempool_crate() function, the defination of this function like below: > > > struct rte_mempool * > > rte_mempool_create(const char *name, unsigned n, unsigned elt_size, > > unsigned cache_size, unsigned private_data_size, > > rte_mempool_ctor_t *mp_init, void *mp_init_arg, > > rte_mempool_obj_cb_t *obj_init, void *obj_init_arg, > > int socket_id, unsigned flags); > > > > > > My question is : what's cache_size value means ? what's difference between if I set cache_size = 0 and cache_size = 512 ? > I get some information from the the dpdk 20.11 it said that, if we set cache size to 0 , it can be useful to avoid losing objects in cache , I can't understand this point, does it mean > that if we set the cache size to non zero, it will suffer the risk that some packages will lost ? right ? > > > Thanks for your tips. > > > BR.