[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/3] mempool: support external mempool operations

[Shreyansh Jain]

Hi Olivier,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 1:00 PM
> To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin at rehivetech.com>; Hunt, David
> <david.hunt at intel.com>
> Cc: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/3] mempool: support external mempool
> operations
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 06/09/2016 03:09 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> >>> My suggestion is to have an additional flag,
> >>> 'MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC', which, if specified, would:
> >>>
> >>> ... #define MEMPOOL_F_SC_GET    0x0008 #define
> >>> MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC 0x0010 ...
> >>>
> >>> in rte_mempool_create_empty: ... after checking the other
> >>> MEMPOOL_F_* flags...
> >>>
> >>> if (flags & MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC) rte_mempool_set_ops_byname(mp,
> >>> RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS)
> >>>
> >>> And removing the redundant call to rte_mempool_set_ops_byname()
> >>> in rte_pktmbuf_create_pool().
> >>>
> >>> Thereafter, rte_pktmbuf_pool_create can be changed to:
> >>>
> >>> ... mp = rte_mempool_create_empty(name, n, elt_size, cache_size,
> >>> -        sizeof(struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private), socket_id, 0);
> >>> +        sizeof(struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private), socket_id, +
> >>> MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC); if (mp == NULL) return NULL;
> >>
> >> Yes, this would simplify somewhat the creation of a pktmbuf pool,
> >> in that it replaces the rte_mempool_set_ops_byname with a flag bit.
> >> However, I'm not sure we want to introduce a third method of
> >> creating a mempool to the developers. If we introduced this, we
> >> would then have: 1. rte_pktmbuf_pool_create() 2.
> >> rte_mempool_create_empty() with MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC set (which
> >> would use the configured custom handler) 3.
> >> rte_mempool_create_empty() with MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC __not__ set
> >> followed by a call to rte_mempool_set_ops_byname() (would allow
> >> several different custom handlers to be used in one application
> >>
> >> Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Oliver, Jerin, Jan?
> >
> > I am quite careful about this topic as I don't feel to be very
> > involved in all the use cases. My opinion is that the _new API_
> > should be able to cover all cases and the _old API_ should be
> > backwards compatible, however, built on top of the _new API_.
> >
> > I.e. I think, the flags MEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT, MEMPOOL_F_SC_GET (relicts
> > of the old API) should be accepted by the old API ONLY. The
> > rte_mempool_create_empty should not process them.
> 
> The rte_mempool_create_empty() function already processes these flags
> (SC_GET, SP_PUT) as of today.
> 
> > Similarly for a potential MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC, I would not polute the
> > rte_mempool_create_empty by this anymore.
> 
> +1
> 
> I think we should stop adding flags. Flags are prefered for independent
> features. Here, what would be the behavior with MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC +
> MEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT?
> 
> Another reason to not add this flag is the rte_mempool library
> should not be aware of mbufs. The mbuf pools rely on mempools, but
> not the contrary.

Agree - mempool should be agnostic of the mbufs using it.
But, mempool should be aware of the allocator it is using, in my opinion.

And, agree with your argument of "MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC + MEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT" - it is bad semantics.

> 
> 
> > In overall we would get exactly 2 approaches (and not more):
> >
> > * using rte_mempool_create with flags calling the
> > rte_mempool_create_empty and rte_mempool_set_ops_byname internally
> > (so this layer can be marked as deprecated and removed in the
> > future)
> 
> Agree. This was one of the objective of my mempool rework patchset:
> provide a more flexible API, and avoid functions with 10 to 15
> arguments.
> 
> > * using rte_mempool_create_empty + rte_mempool_set_ops_byname -
> > allowing any customizations but with the necessity to change the
> > applications (new preferred API)
> 
> Yes.
> And if required, maybe a third API is possible in case of mbuf pools.
> Indeed, the applications are encouraged to use rte_pktmbuf_pool_create()
> to create a pool of mbuf instead of mempool API. If an application
> wants to select specific ops for it, we could add:
> 
>   rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_<something>(..., name)
> 
> instead of using the mempool API.
> I think this is what Shreyansh suggests when he says:
> 
>   It sounds fine if calls to rte_mempool_* can select an external
>   handler *optionally* - but, if we pass it as command line, it would
>   be binding (at least, semantically) for rte_pktmbuf_* calls as well.
>   Isn't it?

Er. I think I should clarify the context.
I was referring to the 'command-line-argument-for-selecting-external-mem-allocator' comment. I was just highlighting that probably it would cause conflict with the two APIs.

But, having said that, I agree with you about "...applications are encouraged to use rte_pktmbuf_pool_create() to create a pool of mbuf...".

> 
> 
> > So, the old applications can stay as they are (OK, with a possible
> > new flag MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC) and the new one can do the same but you
> > have to set the ops explicitly.
> >
> > The more different ways of using those APIs we have, the greater hell
> > we have to maintain.
> 
> I'm really not in favor of a MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC flag in mempool api.

Agree. Flags are not pretty way of handling mutually exclusive features - they are not intuitive.
Semantically cleaner API is better approach.

> 
> I think David's patch is already a good step forward. Let's do it
> step by step. Next step is maybe to update some applications (at least
> testpmd) to select a new pool handler dynamically.

Fair enough. We can slowly make changes to all applications to show 'best practice' of creating buffer or packet pools.

> 
> Regards,
> Olivier

-
Shreyansh