Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the patch.
LGTM in general, couple of minor comments/thoughts inline.
<snipped>
> +struct user_mempool_config {
> + int adj_mtu;
> + int socket_id;
> +};
> +
> +static struct user_mempool_config *user_mempools = NULL; static int
> +n_user_mempools;
Should we consider restricting n_user_mempools to some max value ?
>
> /* There should be one 'struct dpdk_tx_queue' created for @@ -573,4
> +582,42 @@ dpdk_buf_size(int mtu) }
>
> +static int
> +dpdk_get_user_adjusted_mtu(int port_adj_mtu, int port_mtu, int
> +port_socket_id) {
> + int best_adj_user_mtu = INT_MAX;
> +
> + for (unsigned i = 0; i < n_user_mempools; i++) {
> + int user_adj_mtu, user_socket_id;
> +
> + user_adj_mtu = user_mempools[i].adj_mtu;
> + user_socket_id = user_mempools[i].socket_id;
> + if (port_adj_mtu > user_adj_mtu
> + || (user_socket_id != INT_MAX
> + && user_socket_id != port_socket_id)) {
> + continue;
> + }
> + if (user_adj_mtu < best_adj_user_mtu) {
> + /* This is the is the lowest valid user MTU. */
> + best_adj_user_mtu = user_adj_mtu;
> + if (best_adj_user_mtu == port_adj_mtu) {
> + /* Found an exact fit, no need to keep searching. */
> + break;
> + }
> + }
I guess this is more appropriate than sorting etc to find lowest valid user MTU
since we assume n_user_mempools will be quite small ?
> + }
> + if (best_adj_user_mtu == INT_MAX) {
> + VLOG_DBG("No user configured shared mempool mbuf sizes found "
> + "suitable for port with MTU %d, NUMA %d.", port_mtu,
> + port_socket_id);
> + best_adj_user_mtu = port_adj_mtu;
> + } else {
> + VLOG_DBG("Found user configured shared mempool with mbufs "
> + "of size %d, suitable for port with MTU %d, NUMA %d.",
> + MTU_TO_FRAME_LEN(best_adj_user_mtu), port_mtu,
> + port_socket_id);
> + }
> + return best_adj_user_mtu;
> +}
> +
<snipped>
Thanks and regards,
Sunil
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
