From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFF55927 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:41:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2015 06:41:37 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,862,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="452017262" Received: from pgsmsx107.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.221.44.105]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2015 06:27:05 -0800 Received: from shsmsx151.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.50) by PGSMSX107.gar.corp.intel.com (10.221.44.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:41:34 +0800 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.62]) by SHSMSX151.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:41:34 +0800 From: "Liang, Cunming" To: Olivier MATZ , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 14/17] mempool: add support to non-EAL thread Thread-Index: AQHQPox1yH9hMxbWjEyYvol39Fg4LZzmsNiAgAG8vIA= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:41:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1422491072-5114-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> <1422842559-13617-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> <1422842559-13617-15-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> <54D7C099.60009@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <54D7C099.60009@6wind.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 14/17] mempool: add support to non-EAL thread 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:41:39 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 4:01 AM > To: Liang, Cunming; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 14/17] mempool: add support to non-EAL > thread >=20 > Hi, >=20 > On 02/02/2015 03:02 AM, Cunming Liang wrote: > > For non-EAL thread, bypass per lcore cache, directly use ring pool. > > It allows using rte_mempool in either EAL thread or any user pthread. > > As in non-EAL thread, it directly rely on rte_ring and it's none preemp= tive. > > It doesn't suggest to run multi-pthread/cpu which compete the rte_mempo= ol. > > It will get bad performance and has critical risk if scheduling policy = is RT. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang > > --- > > lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 18 +++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h > b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h > > index 3314651..4845f27 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h > > +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h > > @@ -198,10 +198,12 @@ struct rte_mempool { > > * Number to add to the object-oriented statistics. > > */ > > #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG > > -#define __MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD(mp, name, n) do { \ > > - unsigned __lcore_id =3D rte_lcore_id(); \ > > - mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_objs +=3D n; \ > > - mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_bulk +=3D 1; \ > > +#define __MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD(mp, name, n) do { \ > > + unsigned __lcore_id =3D rte_lcore_id(); \ > > + if (__lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE) { \ > > + mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_objs +=3D n; \ > > + mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_bulk +=3D 1; \ > > + } \ >=20 > Does it mean that we have no statistics for non-EAL threads? > (same question for rings and timers in the next patches) [LCM] Yes, it is in this patch set, mainly focus on EAL thread and make sur= e no running issue on non-EAL thread. For full non-EAL function, will have other patch set to enhance non-EAL thr= ead as the 2nd step. >=20 >=20 > > } while(0) > > #else > > #define __MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD(mp, name, n) do {} while(0) > > @@ -767,8 +769,9 @@ __mempool_put_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, void > * const *obj_table, > > __MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD(mp, put, n); > > > > #if RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE > 0 > > - /* cache is not enabled or single producer */ > > - if (unlikely(cache_size =3D=3D 0 || is_mp =3D=3D 0)) > > + /* cache is not enabled or single producer or none EAL thread */ > > + if (unlikely(cache_size =3D=3D 0 || is_mp =3D=3D 0 || > > + lcore_id >=3D RTE_MAX_LCORE)) > > goto ring_enqueue; > > > > /* Go straight to ring if put would overflow mem allocated for cache = */ > > @@ -952,7 +955,8 @@ __mempool_get_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, void > **obj_table, > > uint32_t cache_size =3D mp->cache_size; > > > > /* cache is not enabled or single consumer */ > > - if (unlikely(cache_size =3D=3D 0 || is_mc =3D=3D 0 || n >=3D cache_si= ze)) > > + if (unlikely(cache_size =3D=3D 0 || is_mc =3D=3D 0 || > > + n >=3D cache_size || lcore_id >=3D RTE_MAX_LCORE)) > > goto ring_dequeue; > > > > cache =3D &mp->local_cache[lcore_id]; > > >=20 > What is the performance impact of adding this test? [LCM] By perf in unit test, it's almost the same. But haven't measure EAL t= hread and non-EAL thread share the same mempool. >=20 >=20 > Regards, > Olivier