From: "Wiles, Roger Keith" <keith.wiles@windriver.com>
To: "ANANYEV, KONSTANTIN" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk()
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 15:56:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <388C030D-2E72-4B97-A909-F27DDB4055BE@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725821391240@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Keith,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wiles, Roger Keith [mailto:keith.wiles@windriver.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 3:22 PM
>> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk()
>>
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2014, at 4:09 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Wiles, Roger Keith [mailto:keith.wiles@windriver.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 9:08 PM
>>>> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk()
>>>>
>>>> Attaching to the list does not work. If you want the code let me know it is only about 5K in size.
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Wiles, Roger Keith <keith.wiles@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Wiles, Roger Keith <keith.wiles@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 3:54 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Wiles, Roger Keith (Wind River)
>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk()
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 03:50:38PM +0100, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do I need to reject the for the new routines or just make sure the vector driver does not get updated to use those routines?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The new routines are probably useful in the general case. I see no issue
>>>>>>>> with having them in the code, so long as the vector driver is not modified
>>>>>>>> to use them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I 'd say the same thing for non-vector RX/TX PMD code-paths too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, are the new functions comments valid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + * @return
>>>>>>> + * - 0 if the number of mbufs allocated was ok
>>>>>>> + * - <0 is an ERROR.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +static inline int __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Though, as I can see __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk() returns either:
>>>>>>> - number of allocated mbuf (cnt)
>>>>>>> - negative error code
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me fix up the comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>> + * @return
>>>>>>> + * - The number of valid mbufs pointers in the m_list array.
>>>>>>> + * - Zero if the request cnt could not be allocated.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +static inline int __attribute__((always_inline))
>>>>>>> +rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, struct rte_mbuf *m_list[], int16_t cnt)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + return __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk(mp, m_list, cnt);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn't be "less than zero if the request cnt could not be allocated."?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, is there any point to have __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk() at all?
>>>>>>> After all, as you are calling rte_pktmbuf_reset() inside it, it doesn't look __raw__ any more.
>>>>>>> Might be just put its content into rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() and get rid of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was just following the non-bulk routine style __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc(), but I can pull that into a single routine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also wonder, what is the advantage of having multiple counters inside the same loop?
>>>>>>> i.e:
>>>>>>> + for(i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
>>>>>>> + m = *m_list++;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not just:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for(i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
>>>>>>> m = &m_list[i];
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same for free:
>>>>>>> + while(npkts--)
>>>>>>> + rte_pktmbuf_free(*m_list++);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While not just:
>>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < npkts; i++)
>>>>>>> rte_pktmbuf_free(&m_list[i]);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I have it wrong or the compilers are doing the right thing now, but at one point the &m_list[i] would cause the compiler
>> to
>>>> generate a shift or multiple of 'i' and then add it to the base of m_list. If that is not the case anymore then I can update the code as
>>>> you suggested. Using the *m_list++ just adds the size of a pointer to a register and continues.
>>>>>
>>>>> I compared the clang assembler (.s file) output from an example test code I wrote to see if we have any differences in the code
>>>> using the two styles and I found no difference and the code looked the same. I am not a Intel assembler expert and I would
>> suggest
>>>> someone else determine if it generates different code. I tried to compare the GCC outputs and it did look the same to me.
>>>
>>> That's was my question:
>>> Modern compilers are able to generate a good code for a simple loop as above.
>>> So what's the point to use 2 iterators inside the loop, when just one is enough?
>>> Nothing wrong technically, but makes code a bit harder to follow.
>>> Plus, in general, it is a good practise to minimise number of iterators inside the loop, when possible.
>>>
>>> Konstantin
>>
>> Hi Konstantin,
>>
>> I really do not understand the concern if the code is the same, as it appears to me the current patch is very clean and simple. Maybe
>> you have not seen the v2 patch and now v3 patch I sent this morning to fix Bruce's comment suggestion.
>>
>> For the case of the free routine your suggestion would require an extra counter/variable a bit more code a 'for' loop instead of a
>> 'while' loop.
>
> My point was that just one iterator for both loops is enough.
> In general, it is a good practise to minimise number of iterators per loop if possible:
> in some cases compiler might get confused and wouldn't be able to eliminate redundant iterators itself.
I learned a while back to not to be a compiler, but a programmer :-) Now a days the compilers handle the basic cases we have here and for the special cases we need to be aware of how the compiler generates code. I agree having less iterators per loop is cleaner, but in this case I do not think it matters.
> Though yes - technically there is nothing wrong with your approach.
> So if you prefer to keep it as it is - I wouldn't insist.
>
> Konstantin
>
>> +static inline void __attribute__((always_inline))
>> +rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(struct rte_mbuf *m_list[], int16_t npkts)
>> +{
>> + while(npkts--)
>> + rte_pktmbuf_free(*m_list++);
>> +}
>>
>> For the case of the alloc routine I did remove the rte_mbuf * m variable and now I believe it is very clean and changing it to use index
>> variables is just a personal preference. I personal preference of this type is not useful IMO and does not cause any harm. Unless you
>> can suggest a good technical reason to change I am going to leave the patch as is.
>>
>> +static inline int __attribute__((always_inline))
>> +rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, struct rte_mbuf *m_list[], int16_t cnt)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = rte_mempool_get_bulk(mp, (void **)m_list, cnt);
>> + if ( ret == 0 ) {
>> + ret = cnt;
>> + while(cnt--) {
>> +#ifdef RTE_MBUF_REFCNT
>> + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(*m_list, 1);
>> +#endif /* RTE_MBUF_REFCNT */
>> + rte_pktmbuf_reset(*m_list++);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have attached the code and output, please let me know if I did something wrong, but as it stands using the original style is what I
>>>> want to go with.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Konstantin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Bruce
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> ++Keith
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:56 AM, Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Keith Wiles
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 12:10 AM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk()
>>>>>>>>>>> and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk()
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Minor helper routines to mirror the mempool routines and remove the code
>>>>>>>>>>> from applications. The ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c routine could be changed to use
>>>>>>>>>>> the ret_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() routine inplace of rte_mempool_get_bulk().
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe such a change would cause a performance regression, as the extra init code in the alloc_bulk() function would
>> take
>>>>>>>> additional cycles and is not needed. The vector routines use the mempool function directly, so that there is no overhead of
>>>> mbuf
>>>>>>>> initialization, as the vector routines use their additional "knowledge" of what the mbufs will be used for to init them in a faster
>>>> manner
>>>>>>>> than can be done inside the mbuf library.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Bruce
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles <keith.wiles@windriver.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 77
>>>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6e115..f298621 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -546,6 +546,41 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_reset(struct rte_mbuf
>>>>>>>>>>> *m)
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @internal Allocate a list of mbufs from mempool *mp*.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * The use of that function is reserved for RTE internal needs.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Please use rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk().
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @param mp
>>>>>>>>>>> + * The mempool from which mbuf is allocated.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @param m_list
>>>>>>>>>>> + * The array to place the allocated rte_mbufs pointers.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @param cnt
>>>>>>>>>>> + * The number of mbufs to allocate
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @return
>>>>>>>>>>> + * - 0 if the number of mbufs allocated was ok
>>>>>>>>>>> + * - <0 is an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline int __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, struct
>>>>>>>>>>> rte_mbuf *m_list[], int cnt)
>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>> + struct rte_mbuf *m;
>>>>>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + ret = rte_mempool_get_bulk(mp, (void **)m_list, cnt);
>>>>>>>>>>> + if ( ret == 0 ) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>>>>>> + for(i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + m = *m_list++;
>>>>>>>>>>> +#ifdef RTE_MBUF_REFCNT
>>>>>>>>>>> + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
>>>>>>>>>>> +#endif /* RTE_MBUF_REFCNT */
>>>>>>>>>>> + rte_pktmbuf_reset(m);
>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>> + ret = cnt;
>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>> * Allocate a new mbuf from a mempool.
>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>> * This new mbuf contains one segment, which has a length of 0. The pointer
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -671,6 +706,32 @@ __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(struct rte_mbuf *m)
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Allocate a list of mbufs from a mempool into a mbufs array.
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * This mbuf list contains one segment per mbuf, which has a length of 0. The
>>>>>>>>>>> pointer
>>>>>>>>>>> + * to data is initialized to have some bytes of headroom in the buffer
>>>>>>>>>>> + * (if buffer size allows).
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * The routine is just a simple wrapper routine to reduce code in the application
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> + * provide a cleaner API for multiple mbuf requests.
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @param mp
>>>>>>>>>>> + * The mempool from which the mbuf is allocated.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @param m_list
>>>>>>>>>>> + * An array of mbuf pointers, cnt must be less then or equal to the size of the
>>>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @param cnt
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Number of slots in the m_list array to fill.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @return
>>>>>>>>>>> + * - The number of valid mbufs pointers in the m_list array.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * - Zero if the request cnt could not be allocated.
>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline int __attribute__((always_inline))
>>>>>>>>>>> +rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, struct rte_mbuf *m_list[],
>>>>>>>>>>> int16_t cnt)
>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>> + return __rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk(mp, m_list, cnt);
>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>> * Free a segment of a packet mbuf into its original mempool.
>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>> * Free an mbuf, without parsing other segments in case of chained
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -708,6 +769,22 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_free(struct rte_mbuf
>>>>>>>>>>> *m)
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Free a list of packet mbufs back into its original mempool.
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Free a list of mbufs by calling rte_pktmbuf_free() in a loop as a wrapper
>>>>>>>>>>> function.
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @param m_list
>>>>>>>>>>> + * An array of rte_mbuf pointers to be freed.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @param npkts
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Number of packets to free in list.
>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline void rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(struct rte_mbuf *m_list[], int16_t
>>>>>>>>>>> npkts)
>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>> + while(npkts--)
>>>>>>>>>>> + rte_pktmbuf_free(*m_list++);
>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> #ifdef RTE_MBUF_REFCNT
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-213-5533
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-213-5533
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-213-5533
>>>>
>>>> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-213-5533
>>
>> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-213-5533
Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-213-5533
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-07 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-04 23:10 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] Move the error check inside __mempool_check_cookies() Keith Wiles
2014-10-04 23:10 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Adding the routines rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() and rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk() Keith Wiles
2014-10-06 8:56 ` Richardson, Bruce
2014-10-06 14:50 ` Wiles, Roger Keith
2014-10-06 14:53 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-10-06 15:54 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-10-06 16:13 ` Wiles, Roger Keith
2014-10-06 19:45 ` Wiles, Roger Keith
2014-10-06 20:07 ` Wiles, Roger Keith
2014-10-07 9:09 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-10-07 14:22 ` Wiles, Roger Keith
2014-10-07 15:42 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-10-07 15:56 ` Wiles, Roger Keith [this message]
2014-10-07 16:33 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-10-04 23:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] Move the error check inside __mempool_check_cookies() Wiles, Roger Keith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=388C030D-2E72-4B97-A909-F27DDB4055BE@windriver.com \
--to=keith.wiles@windriver.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).