From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C0E42EA9; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:36:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA496410D3; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:36:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B7B40A84 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:36:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesys.local [192.168.4.10]) by dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3775A20424; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:36:51 +0200 (CEST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [PATCH v11 2/2] net/i40e: replace put function Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:36:43 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87A6C@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <20230705180233.880203-2-kamalakshitha.aligeri@arm.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH v11 2/2] net/i40e: replace put function Thread-Index: Admvaud/zU6ynBifRuKAKGDT7ZwQ7QJ/1dug References: <20230224181059.338206-2-kamalakshitha.aligeri@arm.com> <20230705180233.880203-1-kamalakshitha.aligeri@arm.com> <20230705180233.880203-2-kamalakshitha.aligeri@arm.com> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= To: "Kamalakshitha Aligeri" , , , , , , , , , Cc: , , "Ruifeng Wang" , "Feifei Wang" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org > From: Kamalakshitha Aligeri [mailto:kamalakshitha.aligeri@arm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2023 20.03 >=20 > Integrated zero-copy put API in mempool cache in i40e PMD. > On Ampere Altra server, l3fwd single core's performance improves by 5% > with the new API >=20 > Signed-off-by: Kamalakshitha Aligeri > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang > Reviewed-by: Feifei Wang > --- > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h | 27 = ++++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h > b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h > index fe1a6ec75e..35cdb31b2e 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_common.h > @@ -95,18 +95,35 @@ i40e_tx_free_bufs(struct i40e_tx_queue *txq) >=20 > n =3D txq->tx_rs_thresh; >=20 > - /* first buffer to free from S/W ring is at index > - * tx_next_dd - (tx_rs_thresh-1) > - */ > + /* first buffer to free from S/W ring is at index > + * tx_next_dd - (tx_rs_thresh-1) > + */ > txep =3D &txq->sw_ring[txq->tx_next_dd - (n - 1)]; >=20 > if (txq->offloads & RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_MBUF_FAST_FREE) { > + struct rte_mempool *mp =3D txep[0].mbuf->pool; > + struct rte_mempool_cache *cache =3D > rte_mempool_default_cache(mp, rte_lcore_id()); > + void **cache_objs; > + > + if (unlikely(!cache)) > + goto fallback; > + > + cache_objs =3D rte_mempool_cache_zc_put_bulk(cache, mp, n); > + if (unlikely(!cache_objs)) > + goto fallback; > + > for (i =3D 0; i < n; i++) { > - free[i] =3D txep[i].mbuf; > + cache_objs[i] =3D txep[i].mbuf; > /* no need to reset txep[i].mbuf in vector path */ > } > - rte_mempool_put_bulk(free[0]->pool, (void **)free, n); > goto done; > + > +fallback: > + for (i =3D 0; i < n; i++) > + free[i] =3D txep[i].mbuf; > + rte_mempool_generic_put(mp, (void **)free, n, cache); Patchwork, when building with gcc-debug for FreeBSD13-64 and RHEL92-64, = complains that "free" may be used uninitialized in = rte_mempool_check_cookies() called via RTE_MEMPOOL_CHECK_COOKIES() from = rte_mempool_generic_put() here. But "free" is initialized by the = preceding loop, so I don't understand why GCC thinks it may be = uninitialized. Does adding curly braces to the loop help GCC understand that the free = array is initialized, or what is the proper workaround? > + goto done; > + > } >=20 > m =3D rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(txep[0].mbuf); > -- > 2.25.1 Acked-by: Morten Br=F8rup