<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body> <div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> I don’t disagree with you Konstantin, I will defer a decision until we hear back from Morten. It was also another consideration I had when I started with the privdata layout.</div> <div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> -rt</div> <div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </div> <div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container"> <div style="padding: 3pt 0in 0in; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) currentcolor currentcolor;"> <div style="text-align: left; font-family: Aptos; font-size: 12pt; color: black;"> From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com> Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at 1:09 PM To: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>; Randy Tice (rtice) <rtice@cisco.com>; dev@dpdk.org <dev@dpdk.org>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Subject: RE: [RFC] mbuf: add configurable base private size for pktmbuf pools </div> </div> <div id="mail-editor-reference-message-body"> <div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server"> </div> <div class="PlainText" style="font-size: 11pt;"> > > Hi, > > I would like to get feedback on a proposed mbuf change before sending > patches. > > Some deployments need a guaranteed private-data reservation in every packet > mbuf, across multiple mbuf pools and across different consumers of the mbuf > APIs. > > Today, each pktmbuf pool can request a private size when the pool is created. > That works when the application owns all pool creation policy directly. However, > not all relevant mbuf pools are necessarily created by application code. Some > pools may be created by libraries, drivers, or other components outside direct > application control. > > One example already in DPDK is vhost crypto, which creates its own mbuf pool > and supplies a private size for struct vhost_crypto_data_req. There are also > driver-created pktmbuf-style pools, such as cnxk inline meta pools and TAP GSO > context pools. These are examples of pool-creation paths where the application > may not directly control the private-size value used at creation time. > > A PMD-specific devarg could solve one instance of this problem, such as a single > driver-created pool, but that seems too narrow if the requirement is not > inherently PMD-specific. A deployment with multiple drivers, libraries, or other > pool-creation paths outside application control could need the same base > private-size adjustment. In that case, configuring the same value independently > through component-specific options would be fragile and easy to get wrong. > > The proposed generic model is to add a configurable base private size for > pktmbuf pools. The effective private size would be: > > align(pool_requested_priv_size + application_base_priv_size, > > RTE_MBUF_PRIV_ALIGN) > > The tentative EAL option name is: > > --mbuf-base-priv-size=<size> > > The intent is: > > * default behavior remains unchanged when the option is not used; > > * the configured base size is added to the private size requested by each > pktmbuf pool; > > * the final effective private size remains aligned to RTE_MBUF_PRIV_ALIGN; > > * pool-specific private-data requests still work as they do today; > > * DPDK centralizes the policy so pools created outside application control can > reserve the same base private-data space as application-created pools. > > This is not intended to define ownership or layout of the private area. It only > ensures that a deployment can reserve a common base amount of private data > consistently. Applications, drivers, libraries, or components would still be > responsible for their own interpretation of the reserved private area. > > Questions for the list: > > 1. Is a deployment-wide pktmbuf base private-size reservation something DPDK > would consider acceptable? > > 2. Is --mbuf-base-priv-size=<size> a reasonable name, or would another name > better describe the intent? > > 3. Should DPDK expose the effective-size calculation as a helper so pool- > creation paths outside application control can apply the same rule? > > 4. Would maintainers prefer consumer updates in the same series as example > users, or as follow-up patches after the generic mbuf/EAL change is accepted? > > 5. Would maintainers prefer this to remain component-specific, even if more > than one driver, library, or pool-creation path may need to apply the same base > reservation? > > The main goal is to avoid downstream mbuf layout changes and avoid > component-specific configuration drift, while still allowing deployments to > reserve a consistent private-data area across all packet mbuf pools, including > pools created outside direct application control. > > Thanks, > > Randy > > DPDK already has Dynamic Mbuf Fields for run-time management of private data > across all mbuf pools. > DPDK also has the Private Data Area (priv_size), but that is individual to each > mbuf pool, which does not fit your use case. > > Dynamic Mbuf Fields is the perfect fit for the use case you are describing. > > Currently, it only manages a few small memory areas inside the rte_mbuf > structure itself, the dynfield1 array and the dynfield2 field. > But it could easily manage one more memory area associated with the rte_mbuf > structure. > > If we want this to be build-time configurable, it should be relatively simple to > add: > > In config/rte_common.h: > +#define RTE_MBUF_DYN_EXTRA_SIZE 128 > > In lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h: > /** Size of the application private data. In case of an indirect > * mbuf, it stores the direct mbuf private data size. > */ > uint16_t priv_size; > > /** Timesync flags for use with IEEE1588. */ > uint16_t timesync; > > uint32_t dynfield1[9]; /**< Reserved for dynamic fields. */ > + > +#if RTE_MBUF_DYN_EXTRA_SIZE > + /** Extra dynamic fields. */ > + uint32_t dynfield3[RTE_MBUF_DYN_EXTRA_SIZE / sizeof(uint32_t)]; > +#endif > }; Please don't. Lets keep core mbuf size with constant size and layout. > In lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.h: > +static_assert(RTE_MBUF_DYN_EXTRA_SIZE % RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE == 0, > + "RTE_MBUF_DYN_EXTRA_SIZE must be multiple of cache line size."); > > And some associated additions in lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c. > > <feature creep> > > There may also be considerations about what happens to the extra data when: > - Copying an mbuf. > - Attaching an mbuf to another mbuf. > - Detaching an mbuf from another mbuf. > - Cloning an mbuf. > > (The considerations apply to both the packet mbuf itself, and for the non-first > segments of a segmented packet mbuf.) > > The developer of the Dynamic Mbuf Fields library was foreseeable enough to add > a "flags" parameter for dynamic mbuf field creation. > This could be used to specify what happens to each registered dynamic field in > the events enumerated above. > > </feature creep> > > IMO, the extended size of Dynamic Mbuf Fields should be build-time > configurable. > > If the community wants the extended size of Dynamic Mbuf Fields run-time > configurable, the size should be an EAL startup parameter. > It could be named: --mbuf-dyn-extra-size=<size>. > The major difference in implementation is that the space for the extra dynfields > must be dynamically allocated with the mbufs at mbuf pool creation. > Notice that the memory for the extra dynfields should be positioned between the > mbuf structure and the private data area, so their offsets remain the same, also > for two mbuf pools having different Private Data Area sizes. > > -Morten </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>