Hi Andrew,
On Saturday 10 March 2018 09:19 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> Hi Santosh,
>
> On 02/01/2018 04:40 PM, santosh wrote:
>> On Thursday 01 February 2018 03:31 PM, santosh wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday 01 February 2018 11:48 AM, Jacob, Jerin wrote:
>>>> The driver requires one and only one physically contiguous
>>>> memory chunk for all objects.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/mempool/octeontx/rte_mempool_octeontx.c | 25
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mempool/octeontx/rte_mempool_octeontx.c
>>>> b/drivers/mempool/octeontx/rte_mempool_octeontx.c
>>>> index d143d05..4ec5efe 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mempool/octeontx/rte_mempool_octeontx.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mempool/octeontx/rte_mempool_octeontx.c
>>>> @@ -136,6 +136,30 @@ octeontx_fpavf_get_capabilities(const struct
>>>> rte_mempool *mp,
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static ssize_t
>>>> +octeontx_fpavf_calc_mem_size(const struct rte_mempool *mp,
>>>> + uint32_t obj_num, uint32_t pg_shift,
>>>> + size_t *min_chunk_size, size_t *align)
>>>> +{
>>>> + ssize_t mem_size;
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Simply need space for one more object to be able to
>>>> + * fullfil alignment requirements.
>>>> + */
>>>> + mem_size = rte_mempool_calc_mem_size_def(mp, obj_num + 1, pg_shift,
>>>> +
>>> I think, you don't need that (obj_num + 1) as because
>>> rte_xmem_calc_int() will be checking flags for
>>> _ALIGNED + _CAPA_PHYS_CONFIG i.e..
>>>
>>> mask = MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS | MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_PHYS_CONTIG;
>>> if ((flags & mask) == mask)
>>> /* alignment need one additional object */
>>> elt_num += 1;
>> ok, You are removing above check in v2- 06/17, so ignore above comment.
>> I suggest to move this patch and keep it after 06/17. Or perhaps keep
>> common mempool changes first then followed by driver specifics changes in
>> your
>> v3 series.
>
> Finally I've decided to include these changes into the patch which
> removes get_capabilities [1]. Please, take a look at suggested version.
> I think it is the most transparent solution. Otherwise it is hard
> to avoid the issue found by you above.
>
Sure. I'll review.
> I'm sorry, I've forgot to include you in CC.
>
NP,
Thanks.
> [1] https://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/35934/
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew.
