On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:21 PM Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 06/11, William Tu wrote:
> [snip]
> >> @@ -294,16 +326,26 @@ eth_af_xdp_tx(void *queue, struct rte_mbuf **bufs,
> >> uint16_t nb_pkts)
> >>
> >> desc = xsk_ring_prod__tx_desc(&txq->tx, idx_tx + i);
> >> mbuf = bufs[i];
> >> -
> >> - desc->addr = (uint64_t)addrs[i];
> >> desc->len = mbuf->pkt_len;
> >> - pkt = xsk_umem__get_data(umem->mz->addr,
> >> - desc->addr);
> >> - rte_memcpy(pkt, rte_pktmbuf_mtod(mbuf, void *),
> >> - desc->len);
> >> - tx_bytes += mbuf->pkt_len;
> >>
> >> - rte_pktmbuf_free(mbuf);
> >> + /*
> >> + * We need to make sure the external mbuf address is within
> >> + * current port's umem memzone range
> >> + */
> >> + if (pmd_zc && RTE_MBUF_HAS_EXTBUF(mbuf) &&
> >> + in_umem_range(umem,
> >> (uint64_t)mbuf->buf_addr)) {
> >> + desc->addr = (uint64_t)mbuf->buf_addr -
> >> + umem->mz->addr_64;
> >> + mbuf->buf_addr = xsk_umem__get_data(umem->mz->addr,
> >> + (uint64_t)addrs[i]);
> >> + } else {
> >> + desc->addr = (uint64_t)addrs[i];
> >> + pkt = xsk_umem__get_data(umem->mz->addr,
> >> + desc->addr);
> >> + rte_memcpy(pkt, rte_pktmbuf_mtod(mbuf, void *),
> >> + desc->len);
> >> + }
> >> + tx_bytes += mbuf->pkt_len;
> >> }
> >>
> >> xsk_ring_prod__submit(&txq->tx, nb_pkts);
> >> @@ -313,6 +355,9 @@ eth_af_xdp_tx(void *queue, struct rte_mbuf **bufs,
> >> uint16_t nb_pkts)
> >> txq->stats.tx_pkts += nb_pkts;
> >> txq->stats.tx_bytes += tx_bytes;
> >>
> >> + for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++)
> >> + rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[i]);
> >> +
> >
> >Is it ok to free the mbuf here?
> >If the AF_XDP is running pmd_zc=true, the packet mbuf is still in the tx
> >ring and might not be sent out yet.
>
> For pmd_zc=ture case, here mbuf->buf_addr has been exchanged to available addr
> dequeued from umem->buf_ring, rte_pktmbuf_free would just call the free
> callback
> umem_buf_release_to_fq to enqueue the addr to the buf_ring.
>
I see, thanks for the explanation.
William
> Thanks,
> Xiaolong
>
> >
> >Regards,
> >William
> >
