> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 1:52 AM
> To: Liang, Cunming; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 14/17] mempool: add support to non-EAL
> thread
>
> Hi,
>
> On 02/09/2015 03:41 PM, Liang, Cunming wrote:
> >>> #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG
> >>> -#define __MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD(mp, name, n) do { \
> >>> - unsigned __lcore_id = rte_lcore_id(); \
> >>> - mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_objs += n; \
> >>> - mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_bulk += 1; \
> >>> +#define __MEMPOOL_STAT_ADD(mp, name, n) do { \
> >>> + unsigned __lcore_id = rte_lcore_id(); \
> >>> + if (__lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE) { \
> >>> + mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_objs += n; \
> >>> + mp->stats[__lcore_id].name##_bulk += 1; \
> >>> + } \
> >>
> >> Does it mean that we have no statistics for non-EAL threads?
> >> (same question for rings and timers in the next patches)
> > [LCM] Yes, it is in this patch set, mainly focus on EAL thread and make
> > sure no
> running issue on non-EAL thread.
> > For full non-EAL function, will have other patch set to enhance non-EAL
> > thread
> as the 2nd step.
>
> OK
>
> >>> @@ -952,7 +955,8 @@ __mempool_get_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp,
> void
> >> **obj_table,
> >>> uint32_t cache_size = mp->cache_size;
> >>>
> >>> /* cache is not enabled or single consumer */
> >>> - if (unlikely(cache_size == 0 || is_mc == 0 || n >= cache_size))
> >>> + if (unlikely(cache_size == 0 || is_mc == 0 ||
> >>> + n >= cache_size || lcore_id >= RTE_MAX_LCORE))
> >>> goto ring_dequeue;
> >>>
> >>> cache = &mp->local_cache[lcore_id];
> >>>
> >>
> >> What is the performance impact of adding this test?
> > [LCM] By perf in unit test, it's almost the same. But haven't measure EAL
> > thread
> and non-EAL thread share the same mempool.
>
>
> When you say "unit test", are you talking about mempool tests from
> "make test"? Do you have some numbers to share?
[LCM] I means DPDK app/test, run mempool_perf_test. Will add numbers on v5.
