[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] kni: use bulk functions to allocate and free mbufs

Ananyev, Konstantin konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Wed Jan 11 19:25:07 CET 2017



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:48 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> Cc: Sergey Vyazmitinov <s.vyazmitinov at brain4net.com>; olivier.matz at 6wind.com; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] kni: use bulk functions to allocate and free mbufs
> 
> On 1/11/2017 5:43 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:36 PM
> >> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>
> >> Cc: Sergey Vyazmitinov <s.vyazmitinov at brain4net.com>; olivier.matz at 6wind.com; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>;
> dev at dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] kni: use bulk functions to allocate and free mbufs
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:28:21 +0000
> >> "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:18 PM
> >>>> To: Sergey Vyazmitinov <s.vyazmitinov at brain4net.com>
> >>>> Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] kni: use bulk functions to allocate and free mbufs
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 04:50:16 +0700
> >>>> Sergey Vyazmitinov <s.vyazmitinov at 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.
> >>>
> >>> I suppose both stituations are possible:
> >>> 1) user knows off-hand that all mbufs in the group are from the same mempool
> >>> 2) user can't guarantee that all mbufs in the group are from same mempool.
> >>>
> >>> As I understand that patch is for case 1) only.
> >>> For 2) it could be a separate function and separate patch.
> >>>
> >>> Konstantin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Please don't make unnecessary assumptions in pursuit of minor optimizations.
> >
> > I don't suggest to make *any* assumptions.
> > What I am saying we  can have 2 functions for two different cases.
> 
> kni_free_mbufs() is static function. Even user knows if all mbufs are
> some same pool or not, can't pass this information to the free function.
> 
> Of course this information can be passed via new API, or as an update to
> exiting API, but I think it is better to update free function to cover
> both cases instead of getting this information from user.

I suppose misunderstanding came from the fact that kni_free_mbufs()
is modified to use rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(mp, mbufs, n).
I am not talking about kni part of the patch
(to be honest I didn't pay much attention to it).
What I am saying there are many situations when user knows off-hand
that all  mbufs in that group are from the same mempool and such
function will be useful too.
BTW, for my own curiosity, how it could happen with KNI that 
kni_fifo_get() would return mbufs not from kni->pktmbuf_pool
(I am not really familiar with KNI and its use-cases)?
Konstantin

> 
> > Obviously we'll have to document it properly.
> > Konstantin
> >
> >> It is trivial to write a correct free bulk that handles pool changing.
> >> Also the free_seg could be bulked as well.



More information about the dev mailing list