From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:24:54 +0000
Message-ID: <803da3d7-7443-01e8-a14c-1e899c3a5a17@intel.com>
References: <1517627510-60932-1-git-send-email-malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mtetsuyah@gmail.com
To: Mallesh Koujalagi <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7805B5F1C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  5 Mar 2018 16:24:57 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <1517627510-60932-1-git-send-email-malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://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 2/3/2018 3:11 AM, Mallesh Koujalagi wrote:
> After bulk allocation and freeing of multiple mbufs increase more than ~2%
> throughput on single core.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mallesh Koujalagi <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 16 +++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
> index 9385ffd..247ede0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
> @@ -130,10 +130,11 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	packet_size = h->internals->packet_size;
> +
> +	if (rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(h->mb_pool, bufs, nb_bufs) != 0)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++) {
> -		bufs[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(h->mb_pool);
> -		if (!bufs[i])
> -			break;
>  		rte_memcpy(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(bufs[i], void *), h->dummy_packet,
>  					packet_size);
>  		bufs[i]->data_len = (uint16_t)packet_size;
> @@ -149,18 +150,15 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>  static uint16_t
>  eth_null_tx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>  {
> -	int i;
>  	struct null_queue *h = q;
>  
>  	if ((q == NULL) || (bufs == NULL))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++)
> -		rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[i]);
> +	rte_mempool_put_bulk(bufs[0]->pool, (void **)bufs, nb_bufs);

Is it guarantied that all mbufs will be from same mempool?

> +	rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);
>  
> -	rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);
> -
> -	return i;
> +	return nb_bufs;
>  }
>  
>  static uint16_t
>