From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mempool: replace c memcpy code semantics
 with optimized rte_memcpy
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:36:34 +0200
Message-ID: <574FE202.2060306@6wind.com>
References: <1464101442-10501-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <1464250025-9191-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <574BFD97.2010505@6wind.com> <20160531125822.GA10995@localhost.localdomain>
 <574DFC9A.2050304@6wind.com> <20160601070018.GA26922@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas.monjalon@6wind.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com,
 konstantin.ananyev@intel.com
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0312E8B
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2016 09:36:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a136so216163604wme.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160601070018.GA26922@localhost.localdomain>
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 Jerin,

On 06/01/2016 09:00 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:05:30PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>> Today, the objects pointers are reversed only in the get(). It means
>> that this code:
>>
>> 	rte_mempool_get_bulk(mp, table, 4);
>> 	for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
>> 		printf("obj = %p\n", t[i]);
>> 	rte_mempool_put_bulk(mp, table, 4);
>>
>>
>> 	printf("-----\n");
>> 	rte_mempool_get_bulk(mp, table, 4);
>> 	for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
>> 		printf("obj = %p\n", t[i]);
>> 	rte_mempool_put_bulk(mp, table, 4);
>>
>> prints:
>>
>> 	addr1
>> 	addr2
>> 	addr3
>> 	addr4
>> 	-----
>> 	addr4
>> 	addr3
>> 	addr2
>> 	addr1
>>
>> Which is quite strange.
> 
> IMO, It is the expected LIFO behavior. Right ?
> 
> What is not expected is the following, which is the case after change. Or Am I
> missing something here?
> 
> addr1
> addr2
> addr3
> addr4
> -----
> addr1
> addr2
> addr3
> addr4
> 
>>
>> I don't think it would be an issue to replace the loop by a
>> rte_memcpy(), it may increase the copy speed and it will be
>> more coherent with the put().
>>

I think the LIFO behavior should occur on a per-bulk basis. I mean,
it should behave like in the exemplaes below:

  // pool cache is in state X
  obj1 = mempool_get(mp)
  obj2 = mempool_get(mp)
  mempool_put(mp, obj2)
  mempool_put(mp, obj1)
  // pool cache is back in state X

  // pool cache is in state X
  bulk1 = mempool_get_bulk(mp, 16)
  bulk2 = mempool_get_bulk(mp, 16)
  mempool_put_bulk(mp, bulk2, 16)
  mempool_put_bulk(mp, bulk1, 16)
  // pool cache is back in state X

Note that today it's not the case for bulks, since object addresses
are reversed only in get(), we are not back in the original state.
I don't really see the advantage of this.

Removing the reversing may accelerate the cache in case of bulk get,
I think.

Regards,
Olivier