<snip>
> > int n = txq->tx_rs_thresh;
> > int32_t i = 0, j = 0;
> > const int32_t k = RTE_ALIGN_FLOOR(n, RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ);
> > const int32_t m = n % RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ; struct rte_mbuf
> > *free[RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ];
> >
> > For FAST_FREE_MODE:
> >
> > if (k) {
> > for (j = 0; j != k - RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ;
> > j += RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ) {
> > for (i = 0; i <RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ; ++i, ++txep) {
> > free[i] = txep->mbuf;
> > txep->mbuf = NULL;
> > }
> > rte_mempool_put_bulk(free[0]->pool, (void **)free,
> > RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > if (m) {
> > for (i = 0; i < m; ++i, ++txep) {
> > free[i] = txep->mbuf;
> > txep->mbuf = NULL;
> > }
> > }
> > rte_mempool_put_bulk(free[0]->pool, (void **)free, m); }
> Seems no logical problem, but the code looks heavy due to for loops.
> Did you run performance with this change when tx_rs_thresh >
> RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ?
Sorry for my late rely. It takes me some time to do the test for this path and
following
is my test results:
First, I come up with another way to solve this bug and compare it with
"loop"(size of 'free' is 64).
That is set the size of 'free' as a large constant. We know:
tx_rs_thresh < ring_desc_size < I40E_MAX_RING_DESC(4096), so we can directly
define as:
struct rte_mbuf *free[RTE_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_BUF_SZ];
[1]Test Config:
MRR Test: two porst & bi-directional flows & one core
RX API: i40e_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc
TX API: i40e_xmit_pkts_simple
ring_descs_size: 1024
Ring_I40E_TX_MAX_FREE_SZ: 64
[2]Scheme:
tx_rs_thresh = I40E_DEFAULT_TX_RSBIT_THRESH
tx_free_thresh = I40E_DEFAULT_TX_FREE_THRESH
tx_rs_thresh <= tx_free_thresh < nb_tx_desc
So we change the value of 'tx_rs_thresh' by adjust I40E_DEFAULT_TX_RSBIT_THRESH
[3]Test Results (performance improve):
In X86:
tx_rs_thresh/ tx_free_thresh 32/32 256/256
512/512
1.mempool_put(base) 0 0
0
2.mempool_put_bulk:loop +4.7% +5.6%
+7.0%
3.mempool_put_bulk:large size for free +3.8% +2.3%
-2.0%
(free[I40E_MAX_RING_DESC])
In Arm:
N1SDP:
tx_rs_thresh/ tx_free_thresh 32/32 256/256
512/512
1.mempool_put(base) 0 0
0
2.mempool_put_bulk:loop +7.9% +9.1%
+2.9%
3.mempool_put_bulk:large size for free +7.1% +8.7%
+3.4%
(free[I40E_MAX_RING_DESC])
Thunderx2:
tx_rs_thresh/ tx_free_thresh 32/32 256/256
512/512
1.mempool_put(base) 0 0
0
2.mempool_put_bulk:loop +7.6% +10.5%
+7.6%
3.mempool_put_bulk:large size for free +1.7% +18.4%
+10.2%
(free[I40E_MAX_RING_DESC])
As a result, I feel maybe 'loop' is better and it seems not very heavy
according to the test.
What about your views and look forward to your reply.
Thanks a lot.
