[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ixgbe: don't override mbuf buffer length
Ananyev, Konstantin
konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Fri Dec 5 02:10:28 CET 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Mickael Guerin [mailto:jean-mickael.guerin at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:09 PM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Richardson, Bruce; Ananyev, Konstantin
> Subject: [PATCH v2] ixgbe: don't override mbuf buffer length
>
> The template mbuf_initializer is hard coded with a buflen which
> might have been set differently by the application at the time of
> mbuf pool creation.
>
> Switch to a mbuf allocation, to fetch the correct default values.
> There is no performance impact because this is not a data-plane API.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin at 6wind.com>
> Acked-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com>
> Fixes: 0ff3324da2 ("ixgbe: rework vector pmd following mbuf changes")
> ---
>
> v2: check returned value of ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup
>
> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 5 ++++-
> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> index 5c36bff..7994da1 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> @@ -2244,7 +2244,10 @@ ixgbe_dev_rx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> use_def_burst_func = check_rx_burst_bulk_alloc_preconditions(rxq);
>
> #ifdef RTE_IXGBE_INC_VECTOR
> - ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(rxq);
> + if (ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(rxq) < 0) {
> + ixgbe_rx_queue_release(rxq);
> + return (-ENOMEM);
> + }
> #endif
> /* Check if pre-conditions are satisfied, and no Scattered Rx */
> if (!use_def_burst_func && !dev->data->scattered_rx) {
> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> index c1b5a78..f7b02f5 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> @@ -732,17 +732,22 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops = {
> int
> ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
> {
> - struct rte_mbuf mb_def = { .buf_addr = 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */
> + struct rte_mbuf *mb_def;
>
> - mb_def.nb_segs = 1;
> - mb_def.data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
> - mb_def.buf_len = rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf);
> - mb_def.port = rxq->port_id;
> - rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1);
> + mb_def = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(rxq->mb_pool);
> + if (mb_def == NULL) {
> + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup: could not allocate one mbuf");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + /* nb_segs, refcnt, data_off and buf_len are already set */
> + mb_def->port = rxq->port_id;
>
> /* prevent compiler reordering: rearm_data covers previous fields */
> rte_compiler_barrier();
> - rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def.rearm_data);
> + rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def->rearm_data);
> +
> + rte_pktmbuf_free(mb_def);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.1.3
As I said in another mail, I don't think it is a proper fix.
What we did here - just changed one assumption to another.
Current assumption - all mbuf obj_init() would setup buf_len in exactly the same manner as rte_pktmbuf_init() does:
buf_len = mp->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf);
New assumption - all mbuf obj_init() would setup buf_len for all mbufs in the pool to the same value.
Both assumptions, I believe, are not always correct.
Though, probably the new one would be true more often.
I still think the proper fix is not to update mbuf's buf_len field at ixgbe_rxq_rearm() at all.
We should just leave the original value unmodified.
Actually, while looking at ixgbe_rxq_rearm(), I don't see any reason why we need to update buf_len field.
It is not the data that need to be rearmed.
The fields that need to be rearmed are:
uint16_t data_off;
uint16_t refcnt
uint8_t nb_segs;
uint8_t port;
6B in total.
We probably would like to keep rearming as one 64bit load/store.
Though straight below them we have:
uint64_t ol_flags;
As RX fully override ol_flags anyway, we can safely overwrite first 2B of it.
That would allow us to still read/write whole 64bits and avoid overwriting buf_len.
I am talking about something like patch below.
I admit that it looks not so pretty, but I think it is much safer and correct.
Konstantin
--- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
+++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
@@ -79,13 +79,19 @@ ixgbe_rxq_rearm(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
/* Initialize the mbufs in vector, process 2 mbufs in one loop */
for (i = 0; i < RTE_IXGBE_RXQ_REARM_THRESH; i += 2, rxep += 2) {
__m128i vaddr0, vaddr1;
+ uintptr_t p0, p1;
mb0 = rxep[0].mbuf;
mb1 = rxep[1].mbuf;
/* flush mbuf with pkt template */
- mb0->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer;
- mb1->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer;
+ p0 = (uintptr_t)&mb0->data_off;
+ *(uint64_t *)p0 = rxq->mbuf_initializer;
+ p1 = (uintptr_t)&mb1->data_off;
+ *(uint64_t *)p1 = rxq->mbuf_initializer;
+
+ //mb0->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer;
+ //mb1->rearm_data[0] = rxq->mbuf_initializer;
/* load buf_addr(lo 64bit) and buf_physaddr(hi 64bit) */
vaddr0 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&(mb0->buf_addr));
@@ -732,6 +738,7 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops = {
int
ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
{
+ uintptr_t p;
struct rte_mbuf mb_def = { .buf_addr = 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */
mb_def.nb_segs = 1;
@@ -739,7 +746,8 @@ ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
mb_def.buf_len = rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf);
mb_def.port = rxq->port_id;
rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1);
- rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def.rearm_data);
+ p = (uintptr_t)&mb_def.data_off;
+ rxq->mbuf_initializer = *(uint64_t *)p;
return 0;
}
More information about the dev
mailing list