On 2022-11-02 10:29, Morten Brørup wrote:
From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2022 09.01
On 2022-10-31 12:26, Morten Brørup wrote:
[...]
+++ b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h
@@ -86,6 +86,21 @@ struct rte_mempool_cache {
uint32_t size; /**< Size of the cache */
uint32_t flushthresh; /**< Threshold before we flush excess
elements */
uint32_t len; /**< Current cache count */
+ uint32_t unused0;
+#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_STATS
+ /*
+ * Alternative location for the most frequently updated mempool
statistics (per-lcore),
+ * providing faster update access when using a mempool cache.
+ */
+ struct {
+ uint64_t put_bulk; /**< Number of puts. */
+ uint64_t put_objs; /**< Number of objects
successfully put. */
+ uint64_t get_success_bulk; /**< Successful allocation
number. */
+ uint64_t get_success_objs; /**< Objects successfully
allocated. */
+ } stats; /**< Statistics */
+#else
+ uint64_t unused1[4];
Are a particular DPDK version supposed to be ABI compatible with
itself,
with different configuration options? E.g., with and without
RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_STATS. Is that why you have those 4 unused
uint64_ts?
Valid point: There was no ABI compatibility between with and without
RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_STATS before this patch, so there is no need to add partial
ABI compatibility here.
The #else part of this structure should be removed.
Does anyone disagree?
+#endif
I have no opinion on that matter, but I have another question: if you
remove 'unused1', should you also remove the unused0 field?
