Re: [PATCH v2] mbuf: optimize rte_mbuf_refcnt_update

[Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>]

Hi Hanoch,

On 01/04/2016 03:43 PM, Hanoch Haim (hhaim) wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Let's take your drawing as a reference and add my question
> The use case is sending a duplicate multicast packet by many threads.
> I can split it to x threads to do the job and with atomic-ref (my multicast not mbuf) count it until it reaches zero.
>
> In my following example the two cores (0 and 1) sending the indirect m1/m2 do alloc/attach/send
>
>      core0			             |	core1
> ---------------------------------                         |---------------------------------------
> m_const=rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp)             |
>                                                                    |
> while true:                                                 |  while True:
>    m1 =rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp_64)             |    m2 =rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp_64)
>    rte_pktmbuf_attach(m1, m_const)         |    rte_pktmbuf_attach(m1, m_const)
>    tx_burst(m1)                                           |    tx_burst(m2)
>
> Is this example is not valid?

For me, m_const is not expected to be used concurrently on
several cores. By "used", I mean calling a function that modifies
the mbuf, which is the case for rte_pktmbuf_attach().

> BTW this is our workaround
>
>
>    core0			                    |	core1
> ---------------------------------                  |---------------------------------------
> m_const=rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp)      |
> rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m_const,1)| <<-- workaround
>                                                             |
> while true:                                          |  while True:
>    m1 =rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp_64)      |    m2 =rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp_64)
>    rte_pktmbuf_attach(m1, m_const)  |    rte_pktmbuf_attach(m1, m_const)
>    tx_burst(m1)                                     |    tx_burst(m2)

This workaround indeed solves the issue. Another solution would be to
protect the call to attach() with a lock, or call all the
rte_pktmbuf_attach() on the same core.

I'm open to discuss this behavior for rte_pktmbuf_attach() function
(should concurrent calls be allowed or not). In any case, we may
want to better document it in the doxygen API comments.


Regards,
Olivier