From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
To: Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>,
"olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"roszenrami@gmail.com" <roszenrami@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] mbuf: add function returning default buffer address
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 14:17:04 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <27206464-dcf0-9871-a797-cb0b9f2ff25d@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190111110332.GA8355@minint-98vp2qg>
Olivier, David,
could you take a look at naming suggested below and share your thoughts.
My fear is that rte_mbuf_buf_addr() is too generic and true for direct mbuf
only. That's why I'd like to highlight it in the function name.
Thanks,
Andrew.
On 1/11/19 2:03 PM, Yongseok Koh wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:14:22AM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> On 1/10/19 9:35 PM, Yongseok Koh wrote:
>>> This patch introduces two new functions - rte_mbuf_buf_addr() and
>>> rte_mbuf_data_addr_default().
>>>
>>> rte_mbuf_buf_addr() reutrns the default buffer address of given mbuf which
>>> comes after mbuf structure and private data.
>>>
>>> rte_mbuf_data_addr_default() returns the default address of mbuf data
>>> taking the headroom into account.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> v3:
>>> * rename functions
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> * initial implementation
>>>
>>> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>> index bc562dc8a9..486566fc28 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>> @@ -788,8 +788,47 @@ rte_mbuf_from_indirect(struct rte_mbuf *mi)
>>> }
>>> /**
>>> + * Return the default buffer address of the mbuf.
>>> + *
>>> + * @param mb
>>> + * The pointer to the mbuf.
>>> + * @param mp
>>> + * The pointer to the mempool of the mbuf.
>>> + * @return
>>> + * The pointer of the mbuf buffer.
>>> + */
>>> +static inline char * __rte_experimental
>>> +rte_mbuf_buf_addr(struct rte_mbuf *mb, struct rte_mempool *mp)
>> struct rte_mbuf has pool member. So, I don't understand why mp
>> argument is required. I guess there is a reason, but it should be
>> explained in comments. I see motivation in rte_mbuf_to_baddr()
>> description, but rte_mbuf_buf_add() does not explain it.
> Well, I don't like to put same comment here and there but I'll add small comment
> here.
>
>> Also right now the function name looks like simple get accessor for
>> buf_addr and I'd expect to seem one line implementation may be
>> with extra debug checks: return mb->buf_addr.
> This func is suggested by David and Olivier because same code is being repeated
> in multiple locations. This can be used to initialize a mbuf when mb->buf_addr is
> null. And second use-case (this is my use-case) is to get the buf_addr without
> accessing the mbuf struct when mempool of mbuf is known, e.g. Rx buffer
> replenishment. It is definitely beneficial for performance, especially RISC
> cores.
>
>> May be rte_mbuf_direct_buf_addr() ?
>> If so, similar below rte_mbuf_direct_data_addr_default().
> Regarding naming, people have different tastes. As it is acked by Olivier and
> David, I'll keep the names.
> Thanks,
> Yongseok
>
>>> +{
>>> + char *buffer_addr;
>>> +
>>> + buffer_addr = (char *)mb + sizeof(*mb) + rte_pktmbuf_priv_size(mp);
>>> + return buffer_addr;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * Return the default address of the beginning of the mbuf data.
>>> + *
>>> + * @param mb
>>> + * The pointer to the mbuf.
>>> + * @return
>>> + * The pointer of the beginning of the mbuf data.
>>> + */
>>> +static inline char * __rte_experimental
>>> +rte_mbuf_data_addr_default(struct rte_mbuf *mb)
>>> +{
>>> + return rte_mbuf_buf_addr(mb, mb->pool) + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> * Return the buffer address embedded in the given mbuf.
>>> *
>>> + * Note that accessing mempool pointer of a mbuf is expensive because the
>>> + * pointer is stored in the 2nd cache line of mbuf. If mempool is known, it
>>> + * is better not to reference the mempool pointer in mbuf but calling
>>> + * rte_mbuf_buf_addr() would be more efficient.
>>> + *
>>> * @param md
>>> * The pointer to the mbuf.
>>> * @return
>>> @@ -798,9 +837,7 @@ rte_mbuf_from_indirect(struct rte_mbuf *mi)
>>> static inline char *
>>> rte_mbuf_to_baddr(struct rte_mbuf *md)
>>> {
>>> - char *buffer_addr;
>>> - buffer_addr = (char *)md + sizeof(*md) + rte_pktmbuf_priv_size(md->pool);
>>> - return buffer_addr;
>>> + return rte_mbuf_buf_addr(md, md->pool);
>>> }
>>> /**
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-11 11:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-09 8:54 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix instruction hotspot on replenishing Rx buffer Yongseok Koh
2019-01-09 9:38 ` David Marchand
2019-01-09 9:52 ` Olivier Matz
2019-01-09 9:56 ` Yongseok Koh
2019-01-09 10:05 ` David Marchand
2019-01-09 10:11 ` Yongseok Koh
2019-01-09 13:19 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] mbuf: add function returning default buffer address Yongseok Koh
2019-01-09 13:19 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] net/mlx5: fix instruction hotspot on replenishing Rx buffer Yongseok Koh
2019-01-09 13:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] mbuf: add function returning default buffer address David Marchand
2019-01-10 1:39 ` Rami Rosen
2019-01-10 18:18 ` Yongseok Koh
2019-01-10 18:22 ` Yongseok Koh
2019-01-10 18:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 " Yongseok Koh
2019-01-10 18:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] net/mlx5: fix instruction hotspot on replenishing Rx buffer Yongseok Koh
2019-01-10 19:10 ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-01-11 8:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] mbuf: add function returning default buffer address Andrew Rybchenko
2019-01-11 11:03 ` Yongseok Koh
2019-01-11 11:17 ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2019-01-11 11:37 ` Yongseok Koh
2019-01-11 11:57 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-01-11 12:48 ` David Marchand
2019-01-14 15:51 ` Olivier Matz
2019-01-10 22:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 " Yongseok Koh
2019-01-10 22:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] net/mlx5: fix instruction hotspot on replenishing Rx buffer Yongseok Koh
2019-01-11 8:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] mbuf: add function returning default buffer address Olivier Matz
2019-01-11 8:11 ` David Marchand
2019-01-11 8:32 ` David Marchand
2019-01-11 11:09 ` Yongseok Koh
2019-01-11 10:25 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-01-14 21:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] mbuf: add function returning " Yongseok Koh
2019-01-14 21:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] net/mlx5: fix instruction hotspot on replenishing Rx buffer Yongseok Koh
2019-02-06 15:54 ` Kevin Traynor
2019-02-21 19:10 ` Kevin Traynor
2019-03-08 2:05 ` Yongseok Koh
2019-01-15 1:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] mbuf: add function returning buffer address Thomas Monjalon
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=27206464-dcf0-9871-a797-cb0b9f2ff25d@solarflare.com \
--to=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=roszenrami@gmail.com \
--cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
--cc=yskoh@mellanox.com \
/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).