From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mempool: indicate the usages of multi
	memzones
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:48:01 +0530
Message-ID: <cb5b8b31-67ec-3258-c554-085f69f21059@nxp.com>
References: <1512563473-19969-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
 <20171219102456.ghipiyb2ig43d4nk@glumotte.dev.6wind.com>
 <830d3e36-921b-ef7a-51a4-6d135b15e973@nxp.com>
 <20171219110204.uqxw4xy66o65pnjz@glumotte.dev.6wind.com>
 <9adf0fc2-b233-26c6-b866-236d6277a4ed@nxp.com>
 <42572f99-99bd-ee70-e631-b817d1d679ac@nxp.com>
 <20171222135929.ei35n7gs55u3jqvr@platinum>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-dm3nam03on0072.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.41.72])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 106761D7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:19:23 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <20171222135929.ei35n7gs55u3jqvr@platinum>
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 12/22/2017 7:29 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 05:29:59PM +0530, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
>> On 12/19/2017 6:38 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's true, I commented too fast :)
>>>> And what about using mp->nb_mem_chunks instead? Would it do the job
>>>> in your use-case?
>>>
>>> It should work.  Let me check it out.
>>
>> There is a slight problem with nb_mem_chunks.
>>
>> It is getting incremented in the end of "rte_mempool_populate_phys",
>> while the elements are getting populated before it in the call of
>> mempool_add_elem.
>>
>> I can use nb_mem_chunks are '0' check. However it can break in future if
>> mempool_populate_phys changes.
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure I'm getting what you say.
>
> My question was about using mp->nb_mem_chunks instead of a new flag in the
> dppa driver. Am I missing something?
>

mp->nb_mem_chunks gets finalized when the mempool is fully created. It's 
value is transient before that i.e. it will keep on changing on the 
every call to rte_mempool_populate_phys.

However, we need this information on the very first element allocation. 
So, nb_mem_chunks will not work.