[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] mempool: add stack (lifo) mempool handler
konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Mon Jun 20 15:58:04 CEST 2016
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 2:54 PM
> To: Jerin Jacob
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Hunt, David; olivier.matz at 6wind.com; viktorin at rehivetech.com; shreyansh.jain at nxp.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] mempool: add stack (lifo) mempool handler
> 2016-06-20 18:55, Jerin Jacob:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:08:10PM +0100, David Hunt wrote:
> > > This is a mempool handler that is useful for pipelining apps, where
> > > the mempool cache doesn't really work - example, where we have one
> > > core doing rx (and alloc), and another core doing Tx (and return). In
> > > such a case, the mempool ring simply cycles through all the mbufs,
> > > resulting in a LLC miss on every mbuf allocated when the number of
> > > mbufs is large. A stack recycles buffers more effectively in this
> > > case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.hunt at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > lib/librte_mempool/Makefile | 1 +
> > > lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_stack.c | 145 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > How about moving new mempool handlers to drivers/mempool? (or similar).
> > In future, adding HW specific handlers in lib/librte_mempool/ may be bad idea.
> You're probably right.
> However we need to check and understand what a HW mempool handler will be.
> I imagine the first of them will have to move handlers in drivers/
Does it mean it we'll have to move mbuf into drivers too?
Again other libs do use mempool too.
Why not just lib/librte_mempool/arch/<arch_specific_dir_here>
> Jerin, are you volunteer?
More information about the dev