From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/3] mempool: support external mempool
	operations
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:16:45 +0200
Message-ID: <575EA42D.2030003@6wind.com>
References: <1464965906-108927-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <1465571806-22008-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <1465571806-22008-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: viktorin@rehivetech.com, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com,
 shreyansh.jain@nxp.com
To: David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109895586
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:17:00 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <1465571806-22008-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi David,

Some comments below.

On 06/10/2016 05:16 PM, David Hunt wrote:
> Until now, the objects stored in a mempool were internally stored in a
> ring. This patch introduces the possibility to register external handlers
> replacing the ring.
> 
> The default behavior remains unchanged, but calling the new function
> rte_mempool_set_handler() right after rte_mempool_create_empty() allows
> the user to change the handler that will be used when populating
> the mempool.
> 
> This patch also adds a set of default ops (function callbacks) based
> on rte_ring.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>
> 

> ...
> @@ -386,10 +352,14 @@ rte_mempool_populate_phys(struct rte_mempool *mp, char *vaddr,
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	/* create the internal ring if not already done */
> -	if ((mp->flags & MEMPOOL_F_RING_CREATED) == 0) {
> -		ret = rte_mempool_ring_create(mp);
> -		if (ret < 0)
> -			return ret;
> +	if ((mp->flags & MEMPOOL_F_POOL_CREATED) == 0) {
> +		rte_errno = 0;
> +		ret = rte_mempool_ops_alloc(mp);
> +		if (ret != 0) {
> +			if (rte_errno == 0)
> +				return -EINVAL;
> +			return -rte_errno;
> +		}
>  	}

The rte_errno should be removed. Just return the error code from
rte_mempool_ops_alloc() on failure.

> +/** Structure defining mempool operations structure */
> +struct rte_mempool_ops {
> +	char name[RTE_MEMPOOL_OPS_NAMESIZE]; /**< Name of mempool ops struct */
> +	rte_mempool_alloc_t alloc;       /**< Allocate private data */
> +	rte_mempool_free_t free;         /**< Free the external pool. */
> +	rte_mempool_put_t put;           /**< Put an object. */
> +	rte_mempool_get_t get;           /**< Get an object. */
> +	rte_mempool_get_count get_count; /**< Get qty of available objs. */
> +} __rte_cache_aligned;
> +

Sorry, I missed that in the previous reviews, but since the get/put
functions have been renamed in dequeue/enqueue, I think the same change
should also be done here.


> +/**
> + * Prototype for implementation specific data provisioning function.
> + *
> + * The function should provide the implementation specific memory for
> + * for use by the other mempool ops functions in a given mempool ops struct.
> + * E.g. the default ops provides an instance of the rte_ring for this purpose.
> + * it will most likely point to a different type of data structure, and
> + * will be transparent to the application programmer.
> + */
> +typedef int (*rte_mempool_alloc_t)(struct rte_mempool *mp);

A comment saying that this function should set mp->pool_data
would be nice here, I think.


> +/* wrapper to allocate an external mempool's private (pool) data */
> +int
> +rte_mempool_ops_alloc(struct rte_mempool *mp)
> +{
> +	struct rte_mempool_ops *ops;
> +
> +	ops = rte_mempool_ops_get(mp->ops_index);
> +	if (ops->alloc == NULL)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	return ops->alloc(mp);
> +}

Now that we check that ops->alloc != NULL in the register function,
I wonder if we should keep this test or not. Yes, it doesn't hurt,
but for consistency with the other functions (get/put/get_count),
we may remove it.

This would be a good thing because it would prevent any confusion
with rte_mempool_ops_get(), which returns a pointer to the ops struct
(and has nothing to do with ops->get()).



Regards,
Olivier