From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] vhost: refactor
	rte_vhost_dequeue_burst
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:17:05 +0800
Message-ID: <20160304021705.GT14300@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1449122773-25510-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1455803352-5518-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1455803352-5518-2-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C626DD4@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Victor Kaplansky <vkaplans@redhat.com>
To: "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFE32BC9
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  4 Mar 2016 03:15:30 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C626DD4@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.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>

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 04:30:42PM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote:
> On 2/18/2016 9:48 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > +	mbuf_avail  = 0;
> > +	mbuf_offset = 0;
> > +	while (desc_avail || (desc->flags & VRING_DESC_F_NEXT) != 0) {
> > +		/* This desc reachs to its end, get the next one */
> > +		if (desc_avail == 0) {
> > +			desc = &vq->desc[desc->next];
> > +
> > +			desc_addr = gpa_to_vva(dev, desc->addr);
> > +			rte_prefetch0((void *)(uintptr_t)desc_addr);
> > +
> > +			desc_offset = 0;
> > +			desc_avail  = desc->len;
> > +
> > +			PRINT_PACKET(dev, (uintptr_t)desc_addr, desc->len, 0);
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * This mbuf reachs to its end, get a new one
> > +		 * to hold more data.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (mbuf_avail == 0) {
> > +			cur = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mbuf_pool);
> > +			if (unlikely(!cur)) {
> > +				RTE_LOG(ERR, VHOST_DATA, "Failed to "
> > +					"allocate memory for mbuf.\n");
> > +				if (head)
> > +					rte_pktmbuf_free(head);
> > +				return NULL;
> > +			}
> 
> We could always allocate the head mbuf before the loop, then we save the
> following branch and make the code more streamlined.
> It reminds me that this change prevents the possibility of mbuf bulk
> allocation, one solution is we pass the head mbuf from an additional
> parameter.

Yep, that's also something I have thought of.

> Btw, put unlikely before the check of mbuf_avail and checks elsewhere.

I don't think so. It would benifit for the small packets. What if,
however, when TSO or jumbo frame is enabled that we have big packets?

	--yliu