From: Vadim Suraev <vadim.suraev@gmail.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] rte_mbuf: mbuf bulk alloc/free functions added + unittest
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:53:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ0CJ8nZLeKMEX0gOtJ6doi1gC1JisGn7Ur3OzEQ-ee9+Y4zew@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258214070D7@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Hi, Konstantin,
>Though from my point, such function should be generic as
rte_pktmbuf_free_chain() -
>no special limitations like all mbufs from one pool, refcnt==1, etc.
I misunderstood, I'll rework.
Regards,
Vadim.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:48 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin <
konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Vadim,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vadim Suraev
> > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:31 PM
> > To: Olivier MATZ
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] rte_mbuf: mbuf bulk alloc/free
> functions added + unittest
> >
> > Hi, Olivier,
> > No, I personally need to free a chain using mempool bulk. If I'm not
> > mistaken, it has been proposed by one of reviewers to have lower level
> > function, so it was done (I'm sorry if misunderstood)
>
> Was it me?
> As I remember, I said it would be good to create rte_pktmbuf_bulk_free()
> or rte_pktmbuf_seg_bulk_free() -
> that would free a bulk of mbufs segments in the same manner as
> rte_pktmbuf_free_chain() does:
> count number of consecutive mbufs from the same mempool to be freed and
> then put them back into the pool at one go.
> Such function would be useful inside PMD code.
> In fact we already using analogy of such function inside vPMD TX code.
> Though from my point, such function should be generic as
> rte_pktmbuf_free_chain() -
> no special limitations like all mbufs from one pool, refcnt==1, etc.
> So if it was me who confused you - I am sorry.
> Konstantin
>
> > Regards,
> > Vadim.
> > On Mar 23, 2015 8:44 PM, "Olivier MATZ" <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Neil,
> > >
> > > On 03/19/2015 02:16 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > >> On 03/18/2015 09:58 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > >>>> +/**
> > > >>>> + * Free a bulk of mbufs into its original mempool.
> > > >>>> + * This function assumes:
> > > >>>> + * - refcnt equals 1
> > > >>>> + * - mbufs are direct
> > > >>>> + * - all mbufs must belong to the same mempool
> > > >>>> + *
> > > >>>> + * @param mbufs
> > > >>>> + * Array of pointers to mbuf
> > > >>>> + * @param count
> > > >>>> + * Array size
> > > >>>> + */
> > > >>>> +static inline void rte_pktmbuf_bulk_free(struct rte_mbuf **mbufs,
> > > >>>> + unsigned count)
> > > >>>> +{
> > > >>>> + unsigned idx;
> > > >>>> +
> > > >>>> + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(count > 0);
> > > >>>> +
> > > >>>> + for (idx = 0; idx < count; idx++) {
> > > >>>> + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(mbufs[idx]->pool == mbufs[0]->pool);
> > > >>>> + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) == 1);
> > > >>>> + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 0);
> > > >>> This is really a misuse of the API. The entire point of reference
> > > counting is
> > > >>> to know when an mbuf has no more references and can be freed. By
> > > forcing all
> > > >>> the reference counts to zero here, you allow the refcnt
> infrastructure
> > > to be
> > > >>> circumvented, causing memory leaks.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think what you need to do here is enhance the underlying pktmbuf
> > > interface
> > > >>> such that an rte_mbuf structure has a destructor method association
> > > with it
> > > >>> which is called when its refcnt reaches zero. That way the
> > > >>> rte_pktmbuf_bulk_free function can just decrement the refcnt on
> each
> > > >>> mbuf_structure, and the pool as a whole can be returned when the
> > > destructor
> > > >>> function discovers that all mbufs in that bulk pool are freed.
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't really understand what's the problem here. The API
> explicitly
> > > >> describes the conditions for calling this functions: the segments
> are
> > > >> directs, they belong to the same mempool, and their refcnt is 1.
> > > >>
> > > >> This function could be useful in a driver which knows that the mbuf
> > > >> it allocated matches this conditions. I think an application that
> > > >> only uses direct mbufs and one mempool could also use this function.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That last condition is my issue with this patch, that the user has to
> > > know what
> > > > refcnts are. It makes this api useful for little more than the test
> > > case that
> > > > is provided with it. Its irritating enough that for singly allocated
> > > mbufs the
> > > > user has to know what the refcount of a buffer is before freeing,
> but at
> > > least
> > > > they can macrotize a {rte_pktmbuf_refcnt_update;
> > > if(rte_pktmbuf_refct_read) then
> > > > free} operation.
> > > >
> > > > With this, you've placed the user in charge of not only doing that,
> but
> > > also of
> > > > managing the relationship between pktmbufs and the pool they came
> from.
> > > while
> > > > that makes sense for the test case, it really doesn't in any general
> use
> > > case in
> > > > which packet processing is ever deferred or queued, because it means
> > > that the
> > > > application is now responsible for holding a pointer to every packet
> it
> > > > allocates and checking its refcount periodically until it completes.
> > > >
> > > > There is never any reason that an application won't need to do this
> > > management,
> > > > so making it the purview of the application to handle rather than
> > > properly
> > > > integrating that functionality in the library is really a false
> savings.
> > >
> > > There are some places where you know that the prerequisites are met,
> > > so you can save cycles by using this function.
> > >
> > > From what I imagine, if in a driver you allocate mbufs, chain them and
> > > for some reason you realize you have to free them, you can use this
> > > function instead of freeing them one by one.
> > >
> > > Also, as it's up to the application to decide how many mbuf pools are
> > > created, and whether indirect mbufs are used or not, the application
> > > can take the short path of using this function in some conditions.
> > >
> > > Vadim, maybe you have another reason or use case for adding this
> > > function? Could you detail why you need it and how it improves your
> > > use case?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Olivier
> > >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-24 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-18 20:21 vadim.suraev
2015-03-18 20:58 ` Neil Horman
2015-03-19 8:41 ` Olivier MATZ
2015-03-19 10:06 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-19 13:16 ` Neil Horman
2015-03-23 16:44 ` Olivier MATZ
2015-03-23 17:31 ` Vadim Suraev
2015-03-23 23:48 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-24 7:53 ` Vadim Suraev [this message]
[not found] ` <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258214071C0@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
2015-03-24 11:00 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-23 18:45 ` Neil Horman
2015-03-30 19:04 ` Vadim Suraev
2015-03-30 20:15 ` Neil Horman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-03-17 21:36 vadim.suraev
2015-03-17 23:46 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-18 5:19 ` Vadim Suraev
[not found] ` <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213F7053@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
2015-03-18 9:56 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-18 10:41 ` Vadim Suraev
[not found] ` <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213F7136@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
2015-03-18 15:13 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-19 8:13 ` Olivier MATZ
2015-03-19 10:47 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2015-03-19 10:54 ` Olivier MATZ
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=CAJ0CJ8nZLeKMEX0gOtJ6doi1gC1JisGn7Ur3OzEQ-ee9+Y4zew@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vadim.suraev@gmail.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.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).