From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mempool: reduce rte_mempool structure size
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:06:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56BB9832.10302@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BD003B42-A267-4BF3-8B14-BCA8CC75DE47@intel.com>
Hi Keith,
On 02/10/2016 07:35 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>> @@ -672,6 +704,24 @@ rte_mempool_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
>>> static unsigned
>>> rte_mempool_dump_cache(FILE *f, const struct rte_mempool *mp)
>>> {
>>> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
>>> + unsigned lcore_id;
>>> + unsigned count = 0;
>>> + unsigned cache_count;
>>> +
>>> + fprintf(f, " cache infos:\n");
>>> + fprintf(f, " cache_size=%"PRIu32"\n", mp->cache_size);
>>> + if (mp->cache_size == 0)
>>> + return count;
>>> +
>>> + for (lcore_id = 0; lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE; lcore_id++) {
>>> + cache_count = mp->local_cache[lcore_id].len;
>>> + fprintf(f, " cache_count[%u]=%u\n", lcore_id, cache_count);
>>> + count += cache_count;
>>> + }
>>> + fprintf(f, " total_cache_count=%u\n", count);
>>> + return count;
>>> +#else
>>> #if RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE > 0
>>> unsigned lcore_id;
>>> unsigned count = 0;
>>
>> I think in this case we could avoid to duplicate the code without
>> beeing unclear by using the proper #ifdefs:
>>
>> #if RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE > 0 || defined(RTE_NEXT_ABI)
>> /* common code */
>> #ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
>> if (mp->cache_size == 0)
>> return count;
>> #endif
>> /* common code */
>> #else
>> ...
>> #endif
>
> Started looking at this change and the problem is I want to remove the ifdef RTE_MEMPOOL.. As well as the #else/#endif code. If I do as you suggest it does not appear to be clearer when someone goes back to remove the code, they may think the #ifdef RTE_MEMPOOL/#else/#endif are still required.
OK, makes sense.
>>> @@ -755,19 +793,25 @@ static inline void __attribute__((always_inline))
>>> __mempool_put_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, void * const *obj_table,
>>> unsigned n, int is_mp)
>>> {
>>> +#ifndef RTE_NEXT_ABI /* Note: ifndef */
>>> #if RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE > 0
>>> +#endif /* RTE_NEXT_ABI */
>>> struct rte_mempool_cache *cache;
>>> uint32_t index;
>>> void **cache_objs;
>>> unsigned lcore_id = rte_lcore_id();
>>> uint32_t cache_size = mp->cache_size;
>>> uint32_t flushthresh = mp->cache_flushthresh;
>>> +#ifndef RTE_NEXT_ABI /* Note: ifndef */
>>> #endif /* RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE > 0 */
>>> +#endif /* RTE_NEXT_ABI */
>>
>> this looks strange... I think it does not work properly.
>> Why not
>> #if RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE > 0 || defined(RTE_NEXT_ABI)
>
> Yes I agree the ifndef looks strange, but it should work as we want to remove the #ifdef RTE_MEMPOOL/#endif lines. This was the reason for the comment that it was a ifndef.
It's not only strange, it's also probably not what you want to do:
#ifndef RTE_NEXT_ABI /* Note: ifndef */
#if RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE > 0
#endif /* RTE_NEXT_ABI */
...
Here, the #endif corresponds to the second #if, not the first #ifdef.
Regards,
Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-10 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-02 23:02 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: Reduce " Keith Wiles
2016-02-03 17:11 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-02-08 11:02 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-08 15:57 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-09 17:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mempool: reduce " Keith Wiles
2016-02-10 16:59 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-10 17:22 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-10 18:35 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-10 20:06 ` Olivier MATZ [this message]
2016-02-10 21:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Keith Wiles
2016-02-12 11:23 ` Panu Matilainen
2016-02-12 13:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-12 14:19 ` Panu Matilainen
2016-02-12 15:07 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-12 15:38 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-12 15:50 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-12 15:58 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-15 9:58 ` Hunt, David
2016-02-15 10:15 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-15 10:21 ` Hunt, David
2016-02-15 12:31 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-02-12 15:54 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-02-12 18:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Keith Wiles
2016-02-15 9:20 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-04-14 9:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] " Olivier Matz
2016-04-14 13:28 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-04-14 13:43 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-04-14 13:53 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-05-17 5:31 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-10 18:01 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Wiles, Keith
2016-02-10 18:02 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-12 11:52 ` Panu Matilainen
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=56BB9832.10302@6wind.com \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=keith.wiles@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).