[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
Koujalagi, MalleshX
malleshx.koujalagi at intel.com
Thu Mar 8 22:29:13 CET 2018
Hi Ferruh,
Bulk allocation gives benefit but how much, will check and provide patch.
Best regards
-/Mallesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Yigit, Ferruh
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 2:57 AM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Koujalagi, MalleshX <malleshx.koujalagi at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
Cc: mtetsuyah at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
On 3/5/2018 3:36 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 3:25 PM
>> To: Koujalagi, MalleshX <malleshx.koujalagi at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
>> Cc: mtetsuyah at gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
>>
>> On 2/3/2018 3:11 AM, Mallesh Koujalagi wrote:
>>> After bulk allocation and freeing of multiple mbufs increase more
>>> than ~2% throughput on single core.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mallesh Koujalagi <malleshx.koujalagi at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 16 +++++++---------
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>> b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c index 9385ffd..247ede0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>> @@ -130,10 +130,11 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> packet_size = h->internals->packet_size;
>>> +
>>> + if (rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(h->mb_pool, bufs, nb_bufs) != 0)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++) {
>>> - bufs[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(h->mb_pool);
>>> - if (!bufs[i])
>>> - break;
>>> rte_memcpy(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(bufs[i], void *), h->dummy_packet,
>>> packet_size);
>>> bufs[i]->data_len = (uint16_t)packet_size; @@ -149,18 +150,15 @@
>>> eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>>> static uint16_t eth_null_tx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs,
>>> uint16_t nb_bufs) {
>>> - int i;
>>> struct null_queue *h = q;
>>>
>>> if ((q == NULL) || (bufs == NULL))
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> - for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++)
>>> - rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[i]);
>>> + rte_mempool_put_bulk(bufs[0]->pool, (void **)bufs, nb_bufs);
>>
>> Is it guarantied that all mbufs will be from same mempool?
>
> I don't think it does, plus
> rte_pktmbuf_free(mb) != rte_mempool_put_bulk(mb->pool, &mb, 1);
Perhaps we can just benefit from bulk alloc.
Hi Mallesh,
Does it give any performance improvement if we switch "rte_pktmbuf_alloc()" to "rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk()" but keep free functions untouched?
Thanks,
ferruh
> Konstantin
>
>>
>>> + rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);
>>>
>>> - rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);
>>> -
>>> - return i;
>>> + return nb_bufs;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static uint16_t
>>>
>
More information about the dev
mailing list