From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: mbuf pool and ring size... Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:07:39 +0200 Message-ID: <56011A5B.5080704@6wind.com> References: <98DB008FA2AC6644B40AD8C766FAB271020CB4B3FE@BOREAL.arubanetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Vithal Mohare , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C813D8D9E for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:07:46 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <98DB008FA2AC6644B40AD8C766FAB271020CB4B3FE@BOREAL.arubanetworks.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Vithal, On 09/22/2015 07:10 AM, Vithal Mohare wrote: > Hi, > > While creating mbuf pool, suppose if mbuf-pool size passed to DPDK API is already pow-of-2 [ rte_mempool_create()-->rte_mempool_xmem_create()]. Then, noticed that, corresponding size of the ring created for this pool will be double the size of mbuf-pool. This is because of below code snippet: > rte_mempool_xmem_create(...) { > .... > r = rte_ring_create(rg_name, rte_align32pow2(n+1), socket_id, rg_flags); <<<<<<<< Notice that its 'n+1' here, rte_align32pow2(n+1) > .... > } > Question: why is this 'n+1'? Shouldn't this be just 'n'? >>From rte_ring_init() documentation: The ring size is set to *count*, which must be a power of two. The real usable ring size is *count-1* instead of *count* to differentiate a free ring from an empty ring. Therefore, if the user asks for a mempool with 2048 elements, the ring size has to be 4096. >>From mempool documentation: The optimum size (in terms of memory usage) for a mempool is when n is a power of two minus 1: n = (2^q - 1). Regards, Olivier