Hi, On 01/27/2016 02:56 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > Since rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() is an inline function, it is not part of > the library ABI and should not be listed in the version map. > > I assume its inline for performance reasons, but then you lose the > benefits of dynamic linking such as ability to fix bugs and/or improve > itby just updating the library. Since the point of having a bulk API is > to improve performance by reducing the number of calls required, does it > really have to be inline? As in, have you actually measured the > difference between inline and non-inline and decided its worth all the > downsides?
Agree with Panu. It would be interesting to compare the performance between inline and non inline to decide whether inlining it or not. Also, it would be nice to have a simple test function in app/test/test_mbuf.c. For instance, you could update test_one_pktmbuf() to take a mbuf pointer as a parameter and remove the mbuf allocation from the function. Then it could be called with a mbuf allocated with rte_pktmbuf_alloc() (like before) and with all the mbufs of rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(). Regards, Olivier
