> On Nov 15, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Hanoh Haim <hh...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Hanoh Haim <hh...@cisco.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 27 +++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> index 7e326bb..ab110f8 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> @@ -1159,6 +1159,15 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_reset(struct rte_mbuf
> *m)
> __rte_mbuf_sanity_check(m, 1);
> }
>
> +
> +static __rte_always_inline void rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free(struct
> rte_mbuf *m)
> +{
> + if (m->next != NULL) {
> + m->next = NULL;
> + m->nb_segs = 1;
> + }
> +}
> +
Probably it will be more clean to add something __te_pktmbuf_reset_nb_segs()
without
check for (m->next != NULL) and use it everywhere in mbuf’s the code, not only
in
rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() function. And I think it will be better to have
separate
patch for that.
> /**
> * Allocate a new mbuf from a mempool.
> *
> @@ -1323,8 +1332,7 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_detach(struct rte_mbuf
> *m)
> m->ol_flags = 0;
>
> if (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(md, -1) == 0) {
> - md->next = NULL;
> - md->nb_segs = 1;
Using rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free() here adds unnecessary check for m->next
in that path.
> + rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free(md);
> rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(md, 1);
> rte_mbuf_raw_free(md);
> }
> @@ -1354,25 +1362,16 @@ rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> if (RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(m))
> rte_pktmbuf_detach(m);
>
> - if (m->next != NULL) {
> - m->next = NULL;
> - m->nb_segs = 1;
> - }
> -
> + rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free(m);
> return m;
>
> - } else if (rte_atomic16_add_return(&m->refcnt_atomic, -1) == 0) {
> -
> + } else if (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1) == 0) {
>
> if (RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(m))
> rte_pktmbuf_detach(m);
>
> - if (m->next != NULL) {
> - m->next = NULL;
> - m->nb_segs = 1;
> - }
> + rte_pktmbuf_reset_before_free(m);
> rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> -
> return m;
> }
> return NULL;
> --
> 2.9.3
>
