Hi,
There was lengthy discussions w.r.t external mempool patches.
However, I am still finding usages issue with the agreed approach.
The existing API to create packet mempool, "rte_pktmbuf_pool_create" does not
provide the option to change the object init iterator. This may be the reason
that many applications (e.g. OVS) are using rte_mempool_create to create packet
mempool with their own object iterator (e.g. ovs_rte_pktmbuf_init).
e.g the existing usages are:
dmp->mp = rte_mempool_create(mp_name, mp_size, MBUF_SIZE(mtu),
MP_CACHE_SZ,
sizeof(struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private),
rte_pktmbuf_pool_init, NULL,
ovs_rte_pktmbuf_init, NULL,
socket_id, 0);
With the new API set for packet pool create, this need to be changed to:
dmp->mp = rte_mempool_create_empty(mp_name, mp_size, MBUF_SIZE(mtu),
MP_CACHE_SZ,
sizeof(struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private),
socket_id, 0);
if (dmp->mp == NULL)
break;
rte_errno = rte_mempool_set_ops_byname(dmp-mp,
RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS, NULL);
if (rte_errno != 0) {
RTE_LOG(ERR, MBUF, "error setting
mempool handler\n");
return NULL;
}
rte_pktmbuf_pool_init(dmp->mp, NULL);
ret = rte_mempool_populate_default(dmp->mp);
if (ret < 0) {
rte_mempool_free(dmp->mp);
rte_errno = -ret;
return NULL;
}
rte_mempool_obj_iter(dmp->mp,
ovs_rte_pktmbuf_init, NULL);
This is not a user friendly approach to ask for changing 1 API to 6 new APIs.
Or, am I missing something?
I think, we should do one of the following:
1. Enhance "rte_pktmbuf_pool_create" to optionally accept "rte_mempool_obj_cb_t
*obj_init, void *obj_init_arg" as inputs. If obj_init is not present, default
can be used.
2. Create a new wrapper API (e.g. e_pktmbuf_pool_create_new) with the above
said behavior e.g.:
/* helper to create a mbuf pool */
struct rte_mempool *
rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_new(const char *name, unsigned n,
unsigned cache_size, uint16_t priv_size, uint16_t data_room_size,
rte_mempool_obj_cb_t *obj_init, void *obj_init_arg,
int socket_id)
3. Let the existing rte_mempool_create accept flag as "MEMPOOL_F_HW_PKT_POOL".
Obviously, if this flag is set - all other flag values should be ignored. This
was discussed earlier also.
Please share your opinion.
Regards,
Hemant
