From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3F811C5 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:44:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Dec 2015 02:44:05 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,445,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="15469872" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Dec 2015 02:44:04 -0800 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.203]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.138]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:44:02 +0000 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Stephen Hemminger , "Xie, Huawei" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] mbuf: provide rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk API Thread-Index: AQHRNpJID2t0dHXYcU+SUtfm3b3bvJ7QNRgAgABeEnA= Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:44:02 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836AD5AEB@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1450049754-33635-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com> <1450055682-51953-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com> <1450055682-51953-2-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com> <20151217210114.534a7561@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: <20151217210114.534a7561@xeon-e3> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] mbuf: provide rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk API 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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:44:05 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 5:01 AM > To: Xie, Huawei > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] mbuf: provide rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bu= lk API >=20 > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:14:41 +0800 > Huawei Xie wrote: >=20 > > v2 changes: > > unroll the loop a bit to help the performance > > > > rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk allocates a bulk of packet mbufs. > > > > There is related thread about this bulk API. > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/4718/ > > Thanks to Konstantin's loop unrolling. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gerald Rogers > > Signed-off-by: Huawei Xie > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev > > --- > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > > index f234ac9..4e209e0 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > > @@ -1336,6 +1336,56 @@ static inline struct rte_mbuf *rte_pktmbuf_alloc= (struct rte_mempool *mp) > > } > > > > /** > > + * Allocate a bulk of mbufs, initialize refcnt and reset the fields to= default > > + * values. > > + * > > + * @param pool > > + * The mempool from which mbufs are allocated. > > + * @param mbufs > > + * Array of pointers to mbufs > > + * @param count > > + * Array size > > + * @return > > + * - 0: Success > > + */ > > +static inline int rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(struct rte_mempool *pool, > > + struct rte_mbuf **mbufs, unsigned count) > > +{ > > + unsigned idx =3D 0; > > + int rc; > > + > > + rc =3D rte_mempool_get_bulk(pool, (void **)mbufs, count); > > + if (unlikely(rc)) > > + return rc; > > + > > + switch (count % 4) { > > + while (idx !=3D count) { > > + case 0: > > + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) =3D=3D 0); > > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1); > > + rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]); > > + idx++; > > + case 3: > > + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) =3D=3D 0); > > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1); > > + rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]); > > + idx++; > > + case 2: > > + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) =3D=3D 0); > > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1); > > + rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]); > > + idx++; > > + case 1: > > + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) =3D=3D 0); > > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1); > > + rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]); > > + idx++; > > + } > > + } > > + return 0; > > +} >=20 > This is weird. Why not just use Duff's device in a more normal manner. But it is a sort of Duff's method. Not sure what looks weird to you here? while () {} instead of do {} while();? Konstantin