[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/7] mempool: add mempool arg in xmem size and usage

santosh santosh.shukla at caviumnetworks.com
Mon Sep 4 16:58:36 CEST 2017


On Monday 04 September 2017 08:16 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 08:03:53PM +0530, santosh wrote:
>>
>> On Monday 04 September 2017 07:52 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:37:38AM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote:
>>>> xmem_size and xmem_usage need to know the status of mp->flag.
>>>> Following patch will make use of that.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla at caviumnetworks.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c |  5 +++--
>>>>  lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c           | 10 ++++++----
>>>>  lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h           |  8 ++++++--
>>>>  test/test/test_mempool.c                   |  4 ++--
>>>>  4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c b/drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c
>>>> index 73e82f808..ee0bda459 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c
>>>> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ _create_mempool(const char *name, unsigned elt_num, unsigned elt_size,
>>>>  	pg_shift = rte_bsf32(pg_sz);
>>>>  
>>>>  	rte_mempool_calc_obj_size(elt_size, flags, &objsz);
>>>> -	sz = rte_mempool_xmem_size(elt_num, objsz.total_size, pg_shift);
>>>> +	sz = rte_mempool_xmem_size(elt_num, objsz.total_size, pg_shift, NULL);
>>>>  	pg_num = sz >> pg_shift;
>>>>  
>>>>  	pa_arr = calloc(pg_num, sizeof(pa_arr[0]));
>>> What is the meaning of passing NULL to rte_mempool_xmem_size()?
>>> Does it mean that flags are ignored?
>> Yes that mean flags are ignored.
> But the flags change the return value of rte_mempool_xmem_size(), right?

no, It won't change.

> So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we don't pass the proper flags, the
> returned value won't be the one we expect.

passing flag value other than MEMPOOL_F_POOL_BLK_SZ_ALIGNED, wont impact return value.

>>> Wouldn't it be better to pass the mempool flags instead of the mempool
>>> pointer?
>> Keeping mempool as param rather flag useful in case user want to do/refer more
>> thing in future for xmem_size/usage() api. Otherwise he has append one more param
>> to api and send out deprecation notice.. Btw, its const param so won;t hurt right?
>>
>> However if you still want to restrict param to mp->flags then pl. suggest.
>>
>> Thanks. 
>>
>>



More information about the dev mailing list