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 7828CA04E4;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:39:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200191C026;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:39:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-pj1-f68.google.com (mail-pj1-f68.google.com
 [209.85.216.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881D21C025
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:39:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pj1-f68.google.com with SMTP id f9so22108pju.4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=hr5jI0FRr9XDi+WIm5rD52/auOCN7VlaxRoiPyp2z6Q=;
 b=eB0LYzh8SaXI+IxO64HoRTHd8/SFNSn2y5otm/btmOuKozA6s1jlC1aNMDIPuWk7cr
 jmRthwptHyGHsI0RLq3FkeCbOx2fr3JoVKe7vt7WpUn2du6wkKhG5eFCIqVIKMwLJprx
 PeDVDACVndTDffe9Lb//Nlx4/g9oe+Xag7eNaqEyV6JBJKKWkhkE/rQannSgM87clK7h
 MLShVGbZt7xK6wba5GLaNugd24EhvOAuCc3DoFGK/wKWHBREdYrfkT0DGtgkcVcgm4Rr
 SF6nt1v/DR+i849PoXHLT2YoLeFE1vsoxlYRWXUAc36dONAZRZNOgjAk1VqRLNHoM9bF
 Uh5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
 :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=hr5jI0FRr9XDi+WIm5rD52/auOCN7VlaxRoiPyp2z6Q=;
 b=geJLGEj+AqkIbooL0hMg3aPaNxjObv52hNgT4b1cenwBa72Mf6mip1M0R4ORlxbAR/
 I2znSD2aazEOS+kCCPJ3+UN3G4u0BETPmVqKlQBggjL6lD9EZhsorIunY+ZoQHN0/W7I
 /oGRfH6oSLVW1fSfOjZOSaIopWd/7hjDwVGj2RFKYXU9PaGs1HCNCAl4aqdEzhBhb7VE
 ga9FfVbP0iBK+bmBrZwH2wcA+RreRU5dXr7N1K/vcWv1yMeadeJgsI9Z3GxRyUjozmPk
 3dWGTC0RQTmYZwhWBNTYqybBe0jhUK+BtZar2gc/M8RgObGhSeNsmO+6TSj7WEMPNLCO
 u7lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533dHst4ZkIDlcjW/MFEUHh5Wznl9d7P35MmSwaz6BI5kxYi1VTX
 Im26ofL+6D3LQhw3C8V8JgZoiw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydzEkSfT+ZArn50pOyFP4Y/hacQl6nnY70jOMwIzEQiPt3GuRJ0ylIONjVVcIGsKhtyinwHg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:e381:: with SMTP id
 b1mr2783980pjz.218.1597178347587; 
 Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.lan (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j8sm6397191pff.133.2020.08.11.13.39.06
 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
 Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:38:58 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: "Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com>
Cc: Steven Lariau <steven.lariau@arm.com>, Olivier Matz
 <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com" <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>,
 "dharmik.thakkar@arm.com" <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>, "nd@arm.com"
 <nd@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20200811133858.04ec8369@hermes.lan>
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR11MB2574AB2D9DB70FDA31F062F0F6450@SN6PR11MB2574.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20200805155721.19808-1-steven.lariau@arm.com>
 <20200805155721.19808-2-steven.lariau@arm.com>
 <SN6PR11MB2574AB2D9DB70FDA31F062F0F6450@SN6PR11MB2574.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] test/stack: avoid trivial memory
 allocations
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>

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:13:24 +0000
"Eads, Gage" <gage.eads@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Steven,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven Lariau <steven.lariau@arm.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 10:57 AM
> > To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads@intel.com>; Olivier Matz
> > <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com;
> > dharmik.thakkar@arm.com; nd@arm.com; Steven Lariau
> > <steven.lariau@arm.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/4] test/stack: avoid trivial memory allocations
> > 
> > Replace the arguments array by one argument.
> > All objects in the args array have the same values, so there is no need
> > to use an array, only one struct is enough.
> > The args object is a lot smaller, and the allocation can be replaced
> > with a stack variable.
> > 
> > The allocation of obj_table isn't needed either, because MAX_BULK is
> > small. The allocation can instead be replaced with a static array.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Lariau <steven.lariau@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  app/test/test_stack.c | 39 ++++++---------------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_stack.c b/app/test/test_stack.c
> > index c8dac1f55..5a7273a7d 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_stack.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_stack.c
> > @@ -280,16 +280,9 @@ static int
> >  stack_thread_push_pop(void *args)
> >  {
> >  	struct test_args *t = args;
> > -	void **obj_table;
> > +	void *obj_table[MAX_BULK];
> >  	int i;
> > 
> > -	obj_table = rte_calloc(NULL, STACK_SIZE, sizeof(void *), 0);
> > -	if (obj_table == NULL) {
> > -		printf("[%s():%u] failed to calloc %zu bytes\n",
> > -		       __func__, __LINE__, STACK_SIZE * sizeof(void *));
> > -		return -1;
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	for (i = 0; i < NUM_ITERS_PER_THREAD; i++) {
> >  		unsigned int success, num;
> > 
> > @@ -310,28 +303,25 @@ stack_thread_push_pop(void *args)
> >  		if (rte_stack_push(t->s, obj_table, num) != num) {
> >  			printf("[%s():%u] Failed to push %u pointers\n",
> >  			       __func__, __LINE__, num);
> > -			rte_free(obj_table);
> >  			return -1;
> >  		}
> > 
> >  		if (rte_stack_pop(t->s, obj_table, num) != num) {
> >  			printf("[%s():%u] Failed to pop %u pointers\n",
> >  			       __func__, __LINE__, num);
> > -			rte_free(obj_table);
> >  			return -1;
> >  		}
> > 
> >  		rte_atomic64_sub(t->sz, num);
> >  	}
> > 
> > -	rte_free(obj_table);
> >  	return 0;
> >  }  
> 
> Agreed, the dynamic allocation is unnecessary.
> 
> > 
> >  static int
> >  test_stack_multithreaded(uint32_t flags)
> >  {
> > -	struct test_args *args;
> > +	struct test_args args;
> >  	unsigned int lcore_id;
> >  	struct rte_stack *s;
> >  	rte_atomic64_t size;
> > @@ -344,45 +334,28 @@ test_stack_multithreaded(uint32_t flags)
> >  	printf("[%s():%u] Running with %u lcores\n",
> >  	       __func__, __LINE__, rte_lcore_count());
> > 
> > -	args = rte_malloc(NULL, sizeof(struct test_args) * RTE_MAX_LCORE,
> > 0);
> > -	if (args == NULL) {
> > -		printf("[%s():%u] failed to malloc %zu bytes\n",
> > -		       __func__, __LINE__,
> > -		       sizeof(struct test_args) * RTE_MAX_LCORE);
> > -		return -1;
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	s = rte_stack_create("test", STACK_SIZE, rte_socket_id(), flags);
> >  	if (s == NULL) {
> >  		printf("[%s():%u] Failed to create a stack\n",
> >  		       __func__, __LINE__);
> > -		rte_free(args);
> >  		return -1;
> >  	}
> > 
> >  	rte_atomic64_init(&size);
> > +	args.s = s;
> > +	args.sz = &size;
> > 
> >  	RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_SLAVE(lcore_id) {
> > -		args[lcore_id].s = s;
> > -		args[lcore_id].sz = &size;
> > -
> >  		if (rte_eal_remote_launch(stack_thread_push_pop,
> > -					  &args[lcore_id], lcore_id))
> > +					  &args, lcore_id))
> >  			rte_panic("Failed to launch lcore %d\n", lcore_id);
> >  	}  
> 
> 
> In general we shouldn't pass a stack variable to other threads. Though your
> code here looks fine, I'd rather err on the safe side in case this is ever used
> as a template/basis for some other code...particularly since there's no
> performance/correctness/etc. penalty to using dynamically allocated memory.
> 
> To support patch 2/4, you can instead convert the rte_malloc to allocate a
> single shared test_args structure. Or perhaps move patch 4 earlier in the series,
> and simply pass the stack pointer instead.
> 
> Thanks,
> Gage

There is no gain to using rte_malloc unless you are doing primary/secondary process
or trying to test rte_malloc. Why not use regular malloc which has good tools and library support.