> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > Sent: Tuesday, 16 May 2023 17.24 > > On Tue, 16 May 2023 13:41:46 +0000 > Yasin CANER <yasinnca...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Yasin CANER <yasin.ca...@ulakhaberlesme.com.tr> > > > > after a while working rte_mempool_avail_count function returns bigger > > than mempool size that cause miscalculation rte_mempool_in_use_count. > > > > it helps to avoid miscalculation rte_mempool_in_use_count. > > > > Bugzilla ID: 1229 > > > > Signed-off-by: Yasin CANER <yasin.ca...@ulakhaberlesme.com.tr> > > An alternative that avoids some code duplication. > > diff --git a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c > index cf5dea2304a7..2406b112e7b0 100644 > --- a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c > +++ b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c > @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ rte_mempool_avail_count(const struct rte_mempool > *mp) > count = rte_mempool_ops_get_count(mp); > > if (mp->cache_size == 0) > - return count; > + goto exit;
This bug can only occur here (i.e. with cache_size==0) if rte_mempool_ops_get_count() returns an incorrect value. The bug should be fixed there instead. > > for (lcore_id = 0; lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE; lcore_id++) > count += mp->local_cache[lcore_id].len; > @@ -1019,6 +1019,7 @@ rte_mempool_avail_count(const struct rte_mempool > *mp) > * due to race condition (access to len is not locked), the > * total can be greater than size... so fix the result > */ > +exit: > if (count > mp->size) > return mp->size; > return count;
