[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] vhost: allocate and free packets in bulk

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 4/15/21 5:50 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/15/21 5:45 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:33 PM Maxime Coquelin
>> <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/7/21 12:17 PM, Balazs Nemeth wrote:
>>>> Now that all allocation and freeing has been moved together, use the
>>>> faster bulk versions instead of handling packets one by one.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Balazs Nemeth <bnemeth at redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c | 11 ++++++-----
>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c
>>>> index 496f750e3..2f0c97b91 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c
>>>> @@ -2469,10 +2469,10 @@ virtio_dev_tx_packed(struct virtio_net *dev,
>>>>  {
>>>>       uint32_t pkt_idx = 0;
>>>>       uint32_t remained = count;
>>>> -     uint16_t i;
>>>>
>>>> -     for (i = 0; i < count; ++i)
>>>> -             pkts[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mbuf_pool);
>>>> +     if (rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(mbuf_pool, pkts, count)) {
>>>> +             return 0;
>>>> +     }
>>>
>>> OK, get it now :)
>>> Maybe just add a comment in previous patches that it is going to be
>>> handled when moving to bulk allocation.
>>
>> Looking at the whole series, it is easy to read and understand as a
>> single patch.
>> And it avoids this intermediate issue.
> 
> I agree with David, better to squash the first three patches.

As David told me off-list, all the series can be squashed since the last
patch is a consequence of doing bulk allocation.

Cheers,
Maxime

> Thanks,
> Maxime
>