From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2EAE72 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:02:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2015 09:02:12 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,618,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="711315623" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.22]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2015 09:02:10 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:02:09 +0025 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:02:09 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Message-ID: <20150615160208.GE580@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A838@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <557EDB91.9010503@6wind.com> <20150615141258.GA580@bricha3-MOBL3> <557EE1A0.609@6wind.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A8A8@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <557EECFF.3090402@6wind.com> <20150615152346.GC580@bricha3-MOBL3> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A8FB@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150615153943.GD580@bricha3-MOBL3> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A91C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A91C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Damjan Marion \(damarion\)" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf.next in 2nd cacheline X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:02:13 -0000 On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 04:59:55PM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > As I can see, vector TX is the only one that calls __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() directly. > All others use rte_pktmbuf_free_seg(), that does ' m->next = NULL' anyway. > For vector TX - yes, need to verify that it would not introduce a slowdown. > Konstantin > But if the function is only directly called from one place, and that doesn't have a problem, why would we bother making any change at all? /Bruce