From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE44AA04C8; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:16:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597ED1D934; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:16:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from baidu.com (mx20.baidu.com [111.202.115.85]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCBF1C11F for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:16:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Bc-Mail-Ex13.internal.baidu.com (unknown [172.31.51.53]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id D90416AA706E0238FD52; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:16:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from BJHW-Mail-Ex15.internal.baidu.com (10.127.64.38) by Bc-Mail-Ex13.internal.baidu.com (172.31.51.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:16:31 +0800 Received: from BJHW-Mail-Ex15.internal.baidu.com ([100.100.100.38]) by BJHW-Mail-Ex15.internal.baidu.com ([100.100.100.38]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.006; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:16:31 +0800 From: "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@baidu.com> To: "Loftus, Ciara" <ciara.loftus@intel.com> CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] af_xdp: avoid to unnecessary allocation and free mbuf Thread-Index: AQHWjLEEV4v8TBv8l0q6KKHcoHZI/aluJHQQgAAcMVA= Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:16:31 +0000 Message-ID: <0911565e9178402699ed56264f3eab48@baidu.com> References: <1600319462-2053-1-git-send-email-lirongqing@baidu.com> <1600319462-2053-2-git-send-email-lirongqing@baidu.com> <a3fac55ba7054bee82966009d01dd793@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <a3fac55ba7054bee82966009d01dd793@intel.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.22.198.16] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] af_xdp: avoid to unnecessary allocation and free mbuf X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> +AD4- -----Original Message----- +AD4- From: Loftus, Ciara +AFs-mailto:ciara.loftus+AEA-intel.com+AF0- +AD4- Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 5:39 PM +AD4- To: Li,Rongqing +ADw-lirongqing+AEA-baidu.com+AD4- +AD4- Cc: dev+AEA-dpdk.org +AD4- Subject: RE: +AFs-dpdk-dev+AF0- +AFs-PATCH 2/2+AF0- af+AF8-xdp: avoid= to unnecessary allocation and +AD4- free mbuf +AD4-=20 +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- optimize rx performance, by allocating mbuf based on result of +AD4- +AD4- xsk+AF8-ring+AF8-cons+AF8AXw-peek, to avoid to redundancy alloc= ation, and free mbuf +AD4- +AD4- when receive packets +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Signed-off-by: Li RongQing +ADw-lirongqing+AEA-baidu.com+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Rong +ADw-rongdongsheng+AEA-baidu.com+= AD4- +AD4- +AD4- --- +AD4- +AD4- drivers/net/af+AF8-xdp/rte+AF8-eth+AF8-af+AF8-xdp.c +AHw- 64 +AD4- +AD4- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------------- +AD4- +AD4- ------ +AD4- +AD4- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+-), 37 deletions(-) +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- diff --git a/drivers/net/af+AF8-xdp/rte+AF8-eth+AF8-af+AF8-xdp.= c +AD4- +AD4- b/drivers/net/af+AF8-xdp/rte+AF8-eth+AF8-af+AF8-xdp.c +AD4- +AD4- index 7ce4ad04a..48824050e 100644 +AD4- +AD4- --- a/drivers/net/af+AF8-xdp/rte+AF8-eth+AF8-af+AF8-xdp.c +AD4- +AD4- +-+-+- b/drivers/net/af+AF8-xdp/rte+AF8-eth+AF8-af+AF8-xdp.c +AD4- +AD4- +AEAAQA- -229,28 +-229,29 +AEAAQA- af+AF8-xdp+AF8-rx+AF8-zc(voi= d +ACo-queue, struct rte+AF8-mbuf +AD4- +AD4- +ACoAKg-bufs, uint16+AF8-t nb+AF8-pkts) +AD4- +AD4- struct xsk+AF8-umem+AF8-info +ACo-umem +AD0- rxq-+AD4-umem+AD= s- +AD4- +AD4- uint32+AF8-t idx+AF8-rx +AD0- 0+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- unsigned long rx+AF8-bytes +AD0- 0+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- - int rcvd, i+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +- int i+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- struct rte+AF8-mbuf +ACo-fq+AF8-bufs+AFs-ETH+AF8-AF+AF8-XDP+A= F8-RX+AF8-BATCH+AF8-SIZE+AF0AOw- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- - /+ACo- allocate bufs for fill queue replenishment after rx +A= Co-/ +AD4- +AD4- - if (rte+AF8-pktmbuf+AF8-alloc+AF8-bulk(umem-+AD4-mb+AF8-pool,= fq+AF8-bufs, nb+AF8-pkts)) +AHs- +AD4- +AD4- - AF+AF8-XDP+AF8-LOG(DEBUG, +AD4- +AD4- - +ACI-Failed to get enough buffers for fq.+AFw-n+ACI-)+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- - return 0+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- - +AH0- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- - rcvd +AD0- xsk+AF8-ring+AF8-cons+AF8AXw-peek(rx, nb+AF8-pkts,= +ACY-idx+AF8-rx)+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +- nb+AF8-pkts +AD0- xsk+AF8-ring+AF8-cons+AF8AXw-peek(rx, nb+A= F8-pkts, +ACY-idx+AF8-rx)+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- - if (rcvd +AD0APQ- 0) +AHs- +AD4- +AD4- +- if (nb+AF8-pkts +AD0APQ- 0) +AHs- +AD4- +AD4- +ACM-if defined(XDP+AF8-USE+AF8-NEED+AF8-WAKEUP) +AD4- +AD4- if (xsk+AF8-ring+AF8-prod+AF8AXw-needs+AF8-wakeup(+ACY-umem-= +AD4-fq)) +AD4- +AD4- (void)poll(rxq-+AD4-fds, 1, 1000)+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +ACM-endif +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- - goto out+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +- return 0+ADs- +AD4- +AD4- +AH0- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- - for (i +AD0- 0+ADs- i +ADw- rcvd+ADs- i+-+-) +AHs- +AD4- +AD4- +- /+ACo- allocate bufs for fill queue replenishment after rx += ACo-/ +AD4- +AD4- +- if (rte+AF8-pktmbuf+AF8-alloc+AF8-bulk(umem-+AD4-mb+AF8-pool= , fq+AF8-bufs, nb+AF8-pkts)) +AHs- +AD4- +AD4- +- AF+AF8-XDP+AF8-LOG(DEBUG, +AD4- +AD4- +- +ACI-Failed to get enough buffers for fq.+AFw-n+ACI-)+ADs- +AD4-=20 +AD4- Thanks for this patch. I've considered this in the past. +AD4- There is a problem if we hit this condition. +AD4- We advance the rx producer +AEA- xsk+AF8-ring+AF8-cons+AF8AXw-peek. +AD4- But if we have no mbufs to hold the rx data, it is lost. +AD4- That's why we allocate the mbufs up front now. True, thanks -Li