On 2/26/2016 4:56 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>
> On 02/23/2016 06:35 AM, Xie, Huawei wrote:
>>>> Also, it would be nice to have a simple test function in
>>>> app/test/test_mbuf.c. For instance, you could update
>>>> test_one_pktmbuf() to take a mbuf pointer as a parameter and remove
>>>> the mbuf allocation from the function. Then it could be called with
>>>> a mbuf allocated with rte_pktmbuf_alloc() (like before) and with
>>>> all the mbufs of rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk().
>> Don't quite get you. Is it that we write two cases, one case allocate
>> mbuf through rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk and one use rte_pktmbuf_alloc? It is
>> good to have.
> Yes, something like:
>
> test_one_pktmbuf(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> {
> /* same as before without the allocation/free */
> }
>
> test_pkt_mbuf(void)
> {
> m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(pool);
> test_one_pktmbuf(m);
> rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
>
> ret = rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(pool, mtab, BULK_CNT)
> for (i = 0; i < BULK_CNT; i++) {
> m = mtab[i];
> test_one_pktmbuf(m);
> rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> }
> }
This is to test the functionality.
Let us also have the case like the following?
cycles_start = rte_get_timer_cycles();
while(rounds--) {
ret = rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(pool, mtab, BULK_CNT)
for (i = 0; i < BULK_CNT; i++) {
m = mtab[i];
/* some work if needed */
rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
}
}
cycles_end = rte_get_timer_cycles();
to compare with
cycles_start = rte_get_timer_cycles();
while(rounds--) {
for (i = 0; i < BULK_CNT; i++)
mtab[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(...);
ret = rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(pool, mtab, BULK_CNT)
for (i = 0; i < BULK_CNT; i++) {
m = mtab[i];
/* some work if needed */
rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
}
}
cycles_end = rte_get_timer_cycles();
>> I could do this after this patch.
> Yes, please.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Olivier
>
