On 6/23/2021 1:16 PM, wangyunjian wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 4:46 AM
>> To: wangyunjian <wangyunj...@huawei.com>; liucheng (J)
>> <liuchen...@huawei.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; sta...@dpdk.org; ferruh.yi...@intel.com;
>> gowrishanka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; dingxiaoxiong
>> <dingxiaoxi...@huawei.com>; wangyunjian <wangyunj...@huawei.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] kni: fix mbuf allocation
>> for alloc
>> FIFO
>>
>> 22/06/2021 14:44, wangyunjian:
>>> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunj...@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> In kni_allocate_mbufs(), we alloc mbuf for alloc_q as this code.
>>> allocq_free = (kni->alloc_q->read - kni->alloc_q->write - 1) \
>>> & (MAX_MBUF_BURST_NUM - 1);
>>> The value of allocq_free maybe zero, for example :
>>> The ring size is 1024. After init, write = read = 0. Then we fill
>>> kni->alloc_q to full. At this time, write = 1023, read = 0.
>>>
>>> Then the kernel send 32 packets to userspace. At this time, write =
>>> 1023, read = 32. And then the userspace receive this 32 packets.
>>> Then fill the kni->alloc_q, (32 - 1023 - 1) & 31 = 0, fill nothing.
>>> ...
>>> Then the kernel send 32 packets to userspace. At this time, write =
>>> 1023, read = 992. And then the userspace receive this 32 packets.
>>> Then fill the kni->alloc_q, (992 - 1023 - 1) & 31 = 0, fill nothing.
>>>
>>> Then the kernel send 32 packets to userspace. The kni->alloc_q only
>>> has 31 mbufs and will drop one packet.
>>>
>>> Absolutely, this is a special scene. Normally, it will fill some mbufs
>>> everytime, but may not enough for the kernel to use.
>>>
>>> In this patch, we always keep the kni->alloc_q to full for the kernel
>>> to use.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 49da4e82cf94 ("kni: allocate no more mbuf than empty slots in
>>> queue")
>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Cheng Liu <liuchen...@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunj...@huawei.com>
>>> Acked-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> v3:
>>> update patch title
>>> v2:
>>> add fixes tag and update commit log
>>> ---
>>> lib/kni/rte_kni.c | 5 +++--
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/kni/rte_kni.c b/lib/kni/rte_kni.c index
>>> 9dae6a8d7c..eb24b0d0ae 100644
>>> --- a/lib/kni/rte_kni.c
>>> +++ b/lib/kni/rte_kni.c
>>> @@ -677,8 +677,9 @@ kni_allocate_mbufs(struct rte_kni *kni)
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - allocq_free = (kni->alloc_q->read - kni->alloc_q->write - 1)
>>> - & (MAX_MBUF_BURST_NUM - 1);
>>> + allocq_free = kni_fifo_free_count(kni->alloc_q);
>>
>> Can we insert a comment here to explain the logic?
>
> OK, how about like this?
>
> /* Because 'read/write' maybe not volatile, so use kni_fifo_free_count()
> * to get the num of available elements in the fifo
> */
>
A comment like above may make sense in the commit log to explain the reason of
the change, but for developer reading the new code it doesn't give any useful
information, it even may be confusing.
@Thomas,
Code gets the numbers of the free slots in the FIFO and fills it up to MAX_NUM
unless it gets full first. Can you please clarify which logic to comment more?
>>
>>> + allocq_free = (allocq_free > MAX_MBUF_BURST_NUM) ?
>>> + MAX_MBUF_BURST_NUM : allocq_free;
>>> for (i = 0; i < allocq_free; i++) {
>>> pkts[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(kni->pktmbuf_pool);
>>> if (unlikely(pkts[i] == NULL)) {
>>
>> About the title, I don't understand the part "for alloc FIFO", given all
>> mbufs are
>> in a FIFO queue in KNI, right?
>
> The title is "kni: fix mbuf allocation for FIFO queue"?
>
There are multiple FIFOs in the KNI, one of their name is 'alloc_q', which is
for providing mbufs to the kernel side to use. So userspace allocates mbufs and
puts them to 'alloc_q' to be used by kernel side.
Mainly the "kni: fix mbuf allocation" is enough to describe the fix, but it
sounds too generic, "for alloc FIFO" gives more context to clarify which mbuf
allocation we are referring too.
It is also possible to say as below without refering to name of the FIFO:
"kni: fix mbuf allocation for kernel side use"
Is this any better?
