[PATCH v7] net/idpf: update for new mempool cache algorithm

[Morten Brørup]

Intel idpf maintainers,

PING for review.

The mempool library has been improved [1], so the idpf PMD - which bypasses the mempool API - must be updated to match the library implementation. This patch does that.

[1]: https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=f5e1310f16e0909e7e7f71807123644c63b23cba


Venlig hilsen / Kind regards,
-Morten Brørup

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morten Brørup [mailto:mb at smartsharesystems.com]
> Sent: Monday, 1 June 2026 20.36
> To: dev at dpdk.org; Andrew Rybchenko; Bruce Richardson; Jingjing Wu;
> Praveen Shetty; Hemant Agrawal; Sachin Saxena
> Cc: Morten Brørup
> Subject: [PATCH v7] net/idpf: update for new mempool cache algorithm
> 
> As a consequence of the improved mempool cache algorithm, the PMD was
> updated regarding how much to backfill the mempool cache in the AVX512
> code path.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com>
> ---
> v7:
> * Rebased.
> v6:
> * Moved driver changes out as separate patches, for easier review.
> (Bruce)
> ---
> Depends-on: patch-164745 ("mempool: improve cache behaviour and
> performance")
> ---
>  .../net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c  | 52 +++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c
> b/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c
> index 8db4c64106..5788a009ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_rxtx_avx512.c
> @@ -148,15 +148,31 @@ idpf_singleq_rearm(struct idpf_rx_queue *rxq)
>  	/* Can this be satisfied from the cache? */
>  	if (cache->len < IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH) {
>  		/* No. Backfill the cache first, and then fill from it */
> -		uint32_t req = IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH + (cache->size -
> -							cache->len);
> 
> -		/* How many do we require i.e. number to fill the cache +
> the request */
> +		/* Backfill would exceed the cache bounce buffer limit? */
> +		__rte_assume(cache->size / 2 <= RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE
> / 2);
> +		if (unlikely(cache->size / 2 < IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH)) {
> +			idpf_singleq_rearm_common(rxq);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Backfill the cache from the backend;
> +		 * move up the hot objects in the cache to the top half of
> the cache,
> +		 * and fetch (size / 2) objects to the bottom of the cache.
> +		 */
> +		__rte_assume(cache->len < cache->size / 2);
> +		rte_memcpy(&cache->objs[cache->size / 2], &cache->objs[0],
> +				sizeof(void *) * cache->len);
>  		int ret = rte_mempool_ops_dequeue_bulk
> -				(rxq->mp, &cache->objs[cache->len], req);
> +				(rxq->mp, &cache->objs[0], cache->size / 2);
>  		if (ret == 0) {
> -			cache->len += req;
> +			cache->len += cache->size / 2;
>  		} else {
> +			/*
> +			 * No further action is required for roll back, as
> the objects moved
> +			 * in the cache were actually copied, and the cache
> remains intact.
> +			 */
>  			if (rxq->rxrearm_nb + IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH >=
>  			    rxq->nb_rx_desc) {
>  				__m128i dma_addr0;
> @@ -565,15 +581,31 @@ idpf_splitq_rearm(struct idpf_rx_queue *rx_bufq)
>  	/* Can this be satisfied from the cache? */
>  	if (cache->len < IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH) {
>  		/* No. Backfill the cache first, and then fill from it */
> -		uint32_t req = IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH + (cache->size -
> -							cache->len);
> 
> -		/* How many do we require i.e. number to fill the cache +
> the request */
> +		/* Backfill would exceed the cache bounce buffer limit? */
> +		__rte_assume(cache->size / 2 <= RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE
> / 2);
> +		if (unlikely(cache->size / 2 < IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH)) {
> +			idpf_splitq_rearm_common(rx_bufq);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Backfill the cache from the backend;
> +		 * move up the hot objects in the cache to the top half of
> the cache,
> +		 * and fetch (size / 2) objects to the bottom of the cache.
> +		 */
> +		__rte_assume(cache->len < cache->size / 2);
> +		rte_memcpy(&cache->objs[cache->size / 2], &cache->objs[0],
> +				sizeof(void *) * cache->len);
>  		int ret = rte_mempool_ops_dequeue_bulk
> -				(rx_bufq->mp, &cache->objs[cache->len], req);
> +				(rx_bufq->mp, &cache->objs[0], cache->size /
> 2);
>  		if (ret == 0) {
> -			cache->len += req;
> +			cache->len += cache->size / 2;
>  		} else {
> +			/*
> +			 * No further action is required for roll back, as
> the objects moved
> +			 * in the cache were actually copied, and the cache
> remains intact.
> +			 */
>  			if (rx_bufq->rxrearm_nb + IDPF_RXQ_REARM_THRESH >=
>  			    rx_bufq->nb_rx_desc) {
>  				__m128i dma_addr0;
> --
> 2.43.0