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 at windriver.com> wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Wiles, Roger Keith <keith.wiles at > windriver.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at >> intel.com> wrote: >> >>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson >>>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 3:54 PM >>>> To: Wiles, Roger Keith (Wind River) >>>> Cc: dev at 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. > > 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 at >>>>> intel.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Keith Wiles >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 12:10 AM >>>>>>> To: dev at 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 at 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
