From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ilya Matveychikov <matvejchikov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mbuf: cleanup rte_pktmbuf_lastseg(),
 fix atomic usage
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:13:45 +0400
Message-ID: <1D98684F-B8A9-4037-8534-0D4E3A1FD34C@gmail.com>
References: <20171115091413.27119-1-hhaim@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Hanoh Haim <hhaim@cisco.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com (mail-wm0-f65.google.com [74.125.82.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29511AEE8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 12:13:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id 9so2194212wme.4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:13:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20171115091413.27119-1-hhaim@cisco.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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>


> On Nov 15, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Hanoh Haim <hhaim@cisco.com> wrote:
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Hanoh Haim <hhaim@cisco.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 27 +++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> index 7e326bb..ab110f8 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> @@ -1159,6 +1159,15 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_reset(struct =
rte_mbuf *m)
> 	__rte_mbuf_sanity_check(m, 1);
> }
>=20
> +
> +static __rte_always_inline void rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free(struct =
rte_mbuf *m)
> +{
> +	if (m->next !=3D NULL) {
> +		m->next =3D NULL;
> +		m->nb_segs =3D 1;
> +	}
> +}
> +

Probably it will be more clean to add something =
__te_pktmbuf_reset_nb_segs() without
check for (m->next !=3D NULL) and use it everywhere in mbuf=E2=80=99s =
the code, not only in
rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() function. And I think it will be better to =
have separate
patch for that.

> /**
>  * Allocate a new mbuf from a mempool.
>  *
> @@ -1323,8 +1332,7 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_detach(struct =
rte_mbuf *m)
> 	m->ol_flags =3D 0;
>=20
> 	if (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(md, -1) =3D=3D 0) {
> -		md->next =3D NULL;
> -		md->nb_segs =3D 1;

Using rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free() here adds unnecessary check for =
m->next
in that path.

> +		rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free(md);
> 		rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(md, 1);
> 		rte_mbuf_raw_free(md);
> 	}
> @@ -1354,25 +1362,16 @@ rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> 		if (RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(m))
> 			rte_pktmbuf_detach(m);
>=20
> -		if (m->next !=3D NULL) {
> -			m->next =3D NULL;
> -			m->nb_segs =3D 1;
> -		}
> -
> +		rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free(m);
> 		return m;
>=20
> -       } else if (rte_atomic16_add_return(&m->refcnt_atomic, -1) =3D=3D=
 0) {
> -
> +	} else if (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1) =3D=3D 0) {
>=20
> 		if (RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(m))
> 			rte_pktmbuf_detach(m);
>=20
> -		if (m->next !=3D NULL) {
> -			m->next =3D NULL;
> -			m->nb_segs =3D 1;
> -		}
> +		rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free(m);
> 		rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> -
> 		return m;
> 	}
> 	return NULL;
> --=20
> 2.9.3
>=20