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 <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Koujalagi, MalleshX <malleshx.koujal...@intel.com>; 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 <malleshx.koujal...@intel.com>; 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 <malleshx.koujal...@intel.com> >>> --- >>> 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 >>> >
