[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Remove RTE_MBUF_REFCNT references

[Bruce Richardson]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:33:48AM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 02/18/2015 11:22 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> >>On 02/18/2015 11:00 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 09:48:58AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >>>>Hi lads,
> >>>>
> >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:36 AM
> >>>>>To: Olivier MATZ
> >>>>>Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> >>>>>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Remove RTE_MBUF_REFCNT references
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:16:56AM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> >>>>>>Hi Sergio,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On 02/16/2015 05:08 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
> >>>>>>>This patch removes all references to RTE_MBUF_REFCNT, setting the refcnt
> >>>>>>>field in the mbuf struct permanently.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Signed-off-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I think removing the refcount compile option goes in the right
> >>>>>>direction. However, activating the refcount will break the applications
> >>>>>>that reserve a private zone in mbufs. This is due to the macros
> >>>>>>RTE_MBUF_TO_BADDR() and RTE_MBUF_FROM_BADDR() that suppose that
> >>>>>>the beginning of the mbuf is 128 bytes (sizeof mbuf) before the
> >>>>>>data buffer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>While I understand how the macros make certain assumptions, how does activating
> >>>>>the refcnt specifically lead to the problems you describe? Could you explain
> >>>>>that part in a bit more detail?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks,
> >>>>>/Bruce
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Olivier, I also don't understand your concern here.
> >>>>As I can see, that patch has nothing to do with RTE_MBUF_FROM_BADDR/ RTE_MBUF_FROM_BADDR macros.
> >>>>They are still there, for example rte_pktmbuf_detach() still uses it to restore mbuf's buf_addr.
> >>>>The only principal change here, is that we don't rely more  on RTE_MBUF_FROM_BADDR to determine,
> >>>>Is that indirect mbuf or not.
> >>>>Instead we use a special falg for that purpose:
> >>>>
> >>>>-#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb)   (RTE_MBUF_FROM_BADDR((mb)->buf_addr) != (mb))
> >>>>+#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb)   (mb->ol_flags & IND_ATTACHED_MBUF)
> >>>>
> >>>>BTW, Sergio as I said before, I think it should be:
> >>>>#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb)   ((mb)->ol_flags & IND_ATTACHED_MBUF)
> >>>>
> >>>>Konstantin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>For RTE_MBUF_TO_BADDR(), it's relatively easy to replace it. The
> >>>>>>mbuf pool could store the size of the private size like it's done
> >>>>>>for mbp_priv->mbuf_data_room_size. Using rte_mempool_from_obj(m)
> >>>>>>or m->pool, we can retrieve the mbuf pool and this value, then
> >>>>>>compute the buffer address.
> >>>
> >>>Agreed, that makes sense.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>For RTE_MBUF_FROM_BADDR(), it's more complex. We could ensure that
> >>>>>>a backpointer to the mbuf is always located before the data buffer,
> >>>>>>but it looks difficult to do.
> >>>
> >>>On the other hand, with the proposed refcnt change Sergio proposes, we no
> >>>longer use this macro in any of the built-in mbuf handling for freeing mbufs.
> >>>Does this need to be solved at anything other than the application level?
> >>
> >>It's still used in __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() to retrieve the
> >>parent mbuf (direct) from the indirect mbuf beeing freed.
> >>
> >Yes, my bad.
> >How was this managed before, since refcnt field seems to be necessary in order
> >to effectively manage indirect mbufs? Is this just the case that this is something
> >that never worked and that needs to be solved, or is it something that was
> >working that this patch will now break?
> 
> This is something that never worked before: refcounts are not compatible
> with reserving private data in mbufs. This patch does not change the
> issue, it is still there.
> 
> Before the patch, an application that wanted to reserve a private
> data could disable refcounts at compile-time.
> After the patch, the solution is just to avoid using refcounts.
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier
> 
Thanks for clarifying.
So, you ok with this patch as a step in the right direction?