On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:10:44PM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 5:02 PM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Cc: Olivier MATZ; dev at dpdk.org; Damjan Marion (damarion) > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf.next in 2nd cacheline > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 04:59:55PM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see, vector TX is the only one that calls > > > __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() directly. > > > All others use rte_pktmbuf_free_seg(), that does ' m->next = NULL' anyway. > > > For vector TX - yes, need to verify that it would not introduce a > > > slowdown. > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > But if the function is only directly called from one place, and that doesn't > > have a problem, why would we bother making any change at all? > > > For future usages? > But sure, if you believe that we can safely remove 'm->next = NULL' at RX > path, > without any changes in the __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() - > that seems fine to me. > Konstantin >
If we find it's not safe, we can add in the change to __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg as you suggest. One other question: based on this, do you think it's safe to also remove the assignment to NULL from the pktmbuf_alloc function? I suspect it should be safe, and that should help any traffic-generator type applications that use that function extensively. /Bruce
