Hi,
Any opinion on this patch?
Regards,
Zoltan
On 13/05/15 19:59, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> Otherwise cache_flushthresh can be bigger than n, and
> a consumer can starve others by keeping every element
> either in use or in the cache.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss at linaro.org>
> ---
> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c | 3 ++-
> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
> b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
> index cf7ed76..ca6cd9c 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
> @@ -440,7 +440,8 @@ rte_mempool_xmem_create(const char *name, unsigned n,
> unsigned elt_size,
> mempool_list = RTE_TAILQ_CAST(rte_mempool_tailq.head, rte_mempool_list);
>
> /* asked cache too big */
> - if (cache_size > RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE) {
> + if (cache_size > RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE ||
> + (uint32_t) cache_size * CACHE_FLUSHTHRESH_MULTIPLIER > n) {
> rte_errno = EINVAL;
> return NULL;
> }
> diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> index 9001312..a4a9610 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> @@ -468,7 +468,7 @@ typedef void (rte_mempool_ctor_t)(struct rte_mempool *,
> void *);
> * If cache_size is non-zero, the rte_mempool library will try to
> * limit the accesses to the common lockless pool, by maintaining a
> * per-lcore object cache. This argument must be lower or equal to
> - * CONFIG_RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE. It is advised to choose
> + * CONFIG_RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE and n / 1.5. It is advised to choose
> * cache_size to have "n modulo cache_size == 0": if this is
> * not the case, some elements will always stay in the pool and will
> * never be used. The access to the per-lcore table is of course
>
