From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] net/mlx5: free buffers in bulk on Tx completion Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:43:21 +0200 Message-ID: <20170630124321.GP18305@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> References: <20170628230403.10142-1-yskoh@mellanox.com> <20170628230403.10142-3-yskoh@mellanox.com> <20170630123047.GO18305@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com To: Yongseok Koh Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f180.google.com (mail-wr0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EAA8235 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:43:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f180.google.com with SMTP id r103so203893524wrb.0 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170630123047.GO18305@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:30:47PM +0200, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 04:04:00PM -0700, Yongseok Koh wrote: > > When processing Tx completion, it is more efficient to free buffers in bulk > > using rte_mempool_put_bulk() if buffers are from a same mempool. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yongseok Koh > > --- > > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c > > index 43db06ad8..d81d630f7 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c > > @@ -264,6 +264,8 @@ txq_complete(struct txq *txq) > > uint16_t cq_ci = txq->cq_ci; > > volatile struct mlx5_cqe *cqe = NULL; > > volatile struct mlx5_wqe_ctrl *ctrl; > > + struct rte_mbuf *m, *free[elts_n]; > > + unsigned int blk_n = 0; > > > > do { > > volatile struct mlx5_cqe *tmp; > > @@ -296,21 +298,37 @@ txq_complete(struct txq *txq) > > assert((elts_tail & elts_m) < (1 << txq->wqe_n)); > > /* Free buffers. */ > > while (elts_free != elts_tail) { > > - struct rte_mbuf *elt = (*txq->elts)[elts_free & elts_m]; > > - struct rte_mbuf *elt_next = > > - (*txq->elts)[(elts_free + 1) & elts_m]; > > - > > + m = rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg((*txq->elts)[elts_free++ & elts_m]); > > + if (likely(m != NULL)) { > > + if (blk_n) { > > + if (likely(m->pool == free[0]->pool)) { > > + free[blk_n++] = m; > > + } else { > > + rte_mempool_put_bulk( > > + free[0]->pool, > > + (void *)free, > > + blk_n); > > The indentation is strange here, free[0] should be on the same line as > rte_mempool_put_bulk. > > > + free[0] = m; > > + blk_n = 1; > > + } > > + } else { > > + free[0] = m; > > + blk_n = 1; > > + } > > + } > > This loop could be smaller, blk_n can only be equal to 0 in the first > iteration, otherwise is >= 1. > The first if statement can be merged with the second one: > > if (likely(m != NULL)) { > if (likely(blk_n && m->pool == free[0]->pool)) { This condition is a wrong also, it should be !blk_n || (m->pool ... Why don't you keep a pointer to the mpool (e.g. m->pool == pool)? It seems to cost a little to deference two pointers to reach the pool's one. Thanks, -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND