[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add bulk free function

Morten Brørup mb at smartsharesystems.com
Sun Sep 15 11:07:08 CEST 2019


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 1:42 PM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry; Stephen Hemminger; Morten Brørup
> Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add bulk free function
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Van Haaren, Harry
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:30 PM
> > To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Morten Brørup
> <mb at smartsharesystems.com>
> > Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add bulk free function
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:19 PM
> > > To: Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com>
> > > Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; dev at dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add bulk free function
> > >
> > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:19:08 +0000
> > > Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Add function for freeing a bulk of mbufs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > > index 98225ec80..f2e174da1 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > > > @@ -1907,6 +1907,23 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_free(struct
> rte_mbuf
> > > *m)
> > > >  	}
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * Free a bulk of mbufs back into their original mempool.
> > > > + *
> > > > + *  @param mbufs
> > > > + *    Array of pointers to mbufs
> > > > + *  @param count
> > > > + *    Array size
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline void
> > > > +rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk(struct rte_mbuf **mbufs, unsigned count)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	unsigned idx = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	for (idx = 0; idx < count; idx++)
> > > > +		rte_pktmbuf_free(mbufs[idx]);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >
> > > You can optimize this to use mempool bulk put operation.
> >
> > I believe there's a nuance here - not all mbufs may come from the same
> mempool.
> > The for() approach will free each to its "home" mempool.
> > The bulk() approach may return mbufs to pools they didn't originate from.
> >
> > For performance reasons it would be nice if they did, but we (in the DPDK
> library)
> > should not blindly assume that.
> 
> I suppose Stephen is aware of that and suggests something similar to
> What many PMDs are already doing. Let say in ixgbe:
> static __rte_always_inline int
> ixgbe_tx_free_bufs(struct ixgbe_tx_queue *txq)
> {
> 	....
> 	for (i = 0; i < txq->tx_rs_thresh; ++i, ++txep) {
>                 /* free buffers one at a time */
>                 m = rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(txep->mbuf);
>                 txep->mbuf = NULL;
> 
>                 if (unlikely(m == NULL))
>                         continue;
> 
>                 if (nb_free >= RTE_IXGBE_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ ||
>                     (nb_free > 0 && m->pool != free[0]->pool)) {
>                         rte_mempool_put_bulk(free[0]->pool,
>                                              (void **)free, nb_free);
>                         nb_free = 0;
>                 }
> 
>                 free[nb_free++] = m;
>         }
> }
> 
> Of course generic function will also need to go through all segments in
> each packet.
>

Thank you for the clarifying example!

It looks like this optimization behaves as if RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG is not set.

In that case, the existing rte_pktmbuf_free() could be optimized similarly to free multiple segments in bulk. (Except that the use of likely/unlikely in the mbuf library heavily favors single-segment mbufs, so such an optimization would go against this favoritism.)

And yes, I see how rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk() could be optimized similarly. But I don't think it's appropriate for mbuf library functions to assume that RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG is not set. Although it could be implemented both ways, controlled by #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG / #else / #endif.

> > We could consider adding a 2nd functions,
> rte_pktmbuf_free_bulk_to_single_mempool()
> > or some better descriptive name.
> 
> Probably a good idea too.
> Konstantin
> 

Feature creep. I prefer the generic function only.


Med venlig hilsen / kind regards
- Morten Brørup



More information about the dev mailing list