Hi Sergey,
On 1/11/2017 4:17 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 04:50:16 +0700
> Sergey Vyazmitinov <s.vyazmiti...@brain4net.com> wrote:
>
>> /**
>> + * Free n packets mbuf back into its original mempool.
>> + *
>> + * Free each mbuf, and all its segments in case of chained buffers. Each
>> + * segment is added back into its original mempool.
>> + *
>> + * @param mp
>> + * The packets mempool.
>> + * @param mbufs
>> + * The packets mbufs array to be freed.
>> + * @param n
>> + * Number of packets.
>> + */
>> +static inline void rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp,
>> + struct rte_mbuf **mbufs, unsigned n)
>> +{
>> + struct rte_mbuf *mbuf, *m_next;
>> + unsigned i;
>> + for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
>> + mbuf = mbufs[i];
>> + __rte_mbuf_sanity_check(mbuf, 1);
>> +
>> + mbuf = mbuf->next;
>> + while (mbuf != NULL) {
>> + m_next = mbuf->next;
>> + rte_pktmbuf_free_seg(mbuf);
>> + mbuf = m_next;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + rte_mempool_put_bulk(mp, (void * const *)mbufs, n);
>> +}
>
> The mbufs may come from different pools. You need to handle that.
>
As Stephen pointed mbufs can be from different mempools. But still can
benefit from bulk allocation part of your patch, would you mind
separating patches for alloc and free?
Thanks,
ferruh
