Intel idpf maintainers, PING for review.
The mempool library has been improved [1], so the idpf PMD - which bypasses the mempool API - must be updated to match the library implementation. This patch does that. [1]: https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=f5e1310f16e0909e7e7f71807123644c63b23cba Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, -Morten Brørup > -----Original Message----- > From: Morten Brørup [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, 1 June 2026 20.36 > To: [email protected]; Andrew Rybchenko; Bruce Richardson; Jingjing Wu; > Praveen Shetty; Hemant Agrawal; Sachin Saxena > Cc: Morten Brørup > Subject: [PATCH v7] net/idpf: update for new mempool cache algorithm > > As a consequence of the improved mempool cache algorithm, the PMD was > updated regarding how much to backfill the mempool cache in the AVX512 > code path. > > Signed-off-by: Morten Brørup <[email protected]> > --- > v7: > * Rebased. > v6: > * Moved driver changes out as separate patches, for easier review. > (Bruce) > --- > Depends-on: patch-164745 ("mempool: improve cache behaviour and > performance") > --- > .../net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c | 52 +++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c > b/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c > index 8db4c64106..5788a009ab 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c > +++ b/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c > @@ -148,15 +148,31 @@ idpf_singleq_rearm(struct idpf_rx_queue *rxq) > /* Can this be satisfied from the cache? */ > if (cache->len < IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH) { > /* No. Backfill the cache first, and then fill from it */ > - uint32_t req = IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH + (cache->size - > - cache->len); > > - /* How many do we require i.e. number to fill the cache + > the request */ > + /* Backfill would exceed the cache bounce buffer limit? */ > + __rte_assume(cache->size / 2 <= RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE > / 2); > + if (unlikely(cache->size / 2 < IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH)) { > + idpf_singleq_rearm_common(rxq); > + return; > + } > + > + /* > + * Backfill the cache from the backend; > + * move up the hot objects in the cache to the top half of > the cache, > + * and fetch (size / 2) objects to the bottom of the cache. > + */ > + __rte_assume(cache->len < cache->size / 2); > + rte_memcpy(&cache->objs[cache->size / 2], &cache->objs[0], > + sizeof(void *) * cache->len); > int ret = rte_mempool_ops_dequeue_bulk > - (rxq->mp, &cache->objs[cache->len], req); > + (rxq->mp, &cache->objs[0], cache->size / 2); > if (ret == 0) { > - cache->len += req; > + cache->len += cache->size / 2; > } else { > + /* > + * No further action is required for roll back, as > the objects moved > + * in the cache were actually copied, and the cache > remains intact. > + */ > if (rxq->rxrearm_nb + IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH >= > rxq->nb_rx_desc) { > __m128i dma_addr0; > @@ -565,15 +581,31 @@ idpf_splitq_rearm(struct idpf_rx_queue *rx_bufq) > /* Can this be satisfied from the cache? */ > if (cache->len < IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH) { > /* No. Backfill the cache first, and then fill from it */ > - uint32_t req = IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH + (cache->size - > - cache->len); > > - /* How many do we require i.e. number to fill the cache + > the request */ > + /* Backfill would exceed the cache bounce buffer limit? */ > + __rte_assume(cache->size / 2 <= RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE > / 2); > + if (unlikely(cache->size / 2 < IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH)) { > + idpf_splitq_rearm_common(rx_bufq); > + return; > + } > + > + /* > + * Backfill the cache from the backend; > + * move up the hot objects in the cache to the top half of > the cache, > + * and fetch (size / 2) objects to the bottom of the cache. > + */ > + __rte_assume(cache->len < cache->size / 2); > + rte_memcpy(&cache->objs[cache->size / 2], &cache->objs[0], > + sizeof(void *) * cache->len); > int ret = rte_mempool_ops_dequeue_bulk > - (rx_bufq->mp, &cache->objs[cache->len], req); > + (rx_bufq->mp, &cache->objs[0], cache->size / > 2); > if (ret == 0) { > - cache->len += req; > + cache->len += cache->size / 2; > } else { > + /* > + * No further action is required for roll back, as > the objects moved > + * in the cache were actually copied, and the cache > remains intact. > + */ > if (rx_bufq->rxrearm_nb + IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH >= > rx_bufq->nb_rx_desc) { > __m128i dma_addr0; > -- > 2.43.0
