Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
Hi Ferruh,
Bulk allocation gives benefit but how much, will check and provide patch.
Best regards
-/Mallesh
-Original Message-
From: Yigit, Ferruh
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 2:57 AM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Koujalagi, MalleshX
; dev@dpdk.org
Cc: mtetsu...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
On 3/5/2018 3:36 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 3:25 PM
>> To: Koujalagi, MalleshX ; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: mtetsu...@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
>>
>> 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
>>> ---
>>> 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?
>
> I don't think it does, plus
> rte_pktmbuf_free(mb) != rte_mempool_put_bulk(mb->pool, &mb, 1);
Perhaps we can just benefit from bulk alloc.
Hi Mallesh,
Does it give any performance improvement if we switch "rte_pktmbuf_alloc()" to
"rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk()" but keep free functions untouched?
Thanks,
ferruh
> Konstantin
>
>>
>>> + rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);
>>>
>>> - rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);
>>> -
>>> - return i;
>>> + return nb_bufs;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static uint16_t
>>>
>
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
On 3/5/2018 3:36 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 3:25 PM
>> To: Koujalagi, MalleshX ; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: mtetsu...@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
>>
>> 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
>>> ---
>>> 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?
>
> I don't think it does, plus
> rte_pktmbuf_free(mb) != rte_mempool_put_bulk(mb->pool, &mb, 1);
Perhaps we can just benefit from bulk alloc.
Hi Mallesh,
Does it give any performance improvement if we switch "rte_pktmbuf_alloc()" to
"rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk()" but keep free functions untouched?
Thanks,
ferruh
> Konstantin
>
>>
>>> + rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);
>>>
>>> - rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);
>>> -
>>> - return i;
>>> + return nb_bufs;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static uint16_t
>>>
>
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 3:25 PM
> To: Koujalagi, MalleshX ; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: mtetsu...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
>
> 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
> > ---
> > 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?
I don't think it does, plus
rte_pktmbuf_free(mb) != rte_mempool_put_bulk(mb->pool, &mb, 1);
Konstantin
>
> > + rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);
> >
> > - rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);
> > -
> > - return i;
> > + return nb_bufs;
> > }
> >
> > static uint16_t
> >
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
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
> ---
> 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
>
[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
After bulk allocation and freeing of multiple mbufs increase more than ~2%
throughput on single core.
Signed-off-by: Mallesh Koujalagi
---
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);
+ rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);
- rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);
-
- return i;
+ return nb_bufs;
}
static uint16_t
--
2.7.4
