On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 10:45:11AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Jerin,
>
> On 05/26/2016 10:07 AM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> > ---
> > v1..v2
> > Corrected the the git commit message(s/mbuf/mempool/g)
> > ---
> > lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 5 ++---
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > index 60339bd..24876a2 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@
> > #include <rte_memory.h>
> > #include <rte_branch_prediction.h>
> > #include <rte_ring.h>
> > +#include <rte_memcpy.h>
> >
> > #ifdef __cplusplus
> > extern "C" {
> > @@ -739,7 +740,6 @@ __mempool_put_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, void * const
> > *obj_table,
> > unsigned n, int is_mp)
> > {
> > struct rte_mempool_cache *cache;
> > - uint32_t index;
> > void **cache_objs;
> > unsigned lcore_id = rte_lcore_id();
> > uint32_t cache_size = mp->cache_size;
> > @@ -768,8 +768,7 @@ __mempool_put_bulk(struct rte_mempool *mp, void * const
> > *obj_table,
> > */
> >
> > /* Add elements back into the cache */
> > - for (index = 0; index < n; ++index, obj_table++)
> > - cache_objs[index] = *obj_table;
> > + rte_memcpy(&cache_objs[0], obj_table, sizeof(void *) * n);
> >
> > cache->len += n;
> >
> >
>
> I also checked in the get_bulk() function, which looks like that:
>
> /* Now fill in the response ... */
> for (index = 0, len = cache->len - 1;
> index < n;
> ++index, len--, obj_table++)
> *obj_table = cache_objs[len];
>
> I think we could replace it by something like:
>
> rte_memcpy(obj_table, &cache_objs[len - n], sizeof(void *) * n);
>
> The only difference is that it won't reverse the pointers in the
> table, but I don't see any problem with that.
>
> What do you think?
In true sense, it will _not_ be LIFO. Not sure about cache usage implications
on the specific use cases.
Jerin
>
>
> Regards,
> Olivier
>
