From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715C95A89
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:50:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2015 03:50:00 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,478,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="705033231"
Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157])
by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2015 03:49:59 -0700
Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.47]) by
IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.143]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002;
Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:49:58 +0000
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>, "Richardson, Bruce"
<bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add comment explaining confusing code
Thread-Index: AQHQaAoB03aNTYz8GU2NESg47D/16J0wIdwAgAAFMiA=
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:49:58 +0000
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725821407F2E@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <1427404494-27256-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
<20150327102956.GB5375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150327102956.GB5375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add comment explaining confusing code
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:50:01 -0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 10:30 AM
> To: Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add comment explaining confusing co=
de
>=20
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:14:54PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > The logic used in the condition check before freeing an mbuf is
> > sometimes confusing, so explain it in a proper comment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > ---
> > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > index 17ba791..0265172 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > @@ -764,6 +764,16 @@ __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> > {
> > __rte_mbuf_sanity_check(m, 0);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Check to see if this is the last reference to the mbuf.
> > + * Note: the double check here is deliberate. If the ref_cnt is "atom=
ic"
> > + * the call to "refcnt_update" is a very expensive operation, so we
> > + * don't want to call it in the case where we know we are the holder
> > + * of the last reference to this mbuf i.e. ref_cnt =3D=3D 1.
> > + * If however, ref_cnt !=3D 1, it's still possible that we may still =
be
> > + * the final decrementer of the count, so we need to check that
> > + * result also, to make sure the mbuf is freed properly.
> > + */
> > if (likely (rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) =3D=3D 1) ||
> > likely (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1) =3D=3D 0)) {
> >
> > --
> > 2.1.0
> >
> >
>=20
> NAK
> the comment is incorrect, a return code of 1 from rte_mbuf_refcnt_read d=
oesn't
> guarantee you are the last holder of the buffer if two contexts have a po=
inter
> to it.
Comment is absolutely correct.
Zoltan's 'fix' will introduce unnecessary slowdown.
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
>=20
> Zoltans patch is the correct solution here, expensive or not. I wrote up=
my
> explination in this thread:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-March/015839.html
>=20