[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] mempool: remove non-EAL thread note from header
Eads, Gage
gage.eads at intel.com
Wed Mar 29 17:30:49 CEST 2017
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 9:05 AM
> To: Eads, Gage <gage.eads at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mempool: remove non-EAL thread note from header
>
> Hi Gage,
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:20:58 -0500, Gage Eads <gage.eads at intel.com>
> wrote:
> > Commit 30e6399892276 ("mempool: support non-EAL thread") added the
> > capability for non-EAL threads to use the mempool library. This commit
> > removes the note indicating that the mempool library cannot be used
> > safely by non-EAL threads.
> >
> > Also, fix a typo.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads at intel.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Changed commit message to referenced commit 30e63998 instead of
> > 4b5062755
> > v3: Fix checkpatch error
> >
> > lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 6 +-----
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > index 991feaa..b1186fd 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> > @@ -53,11 +53,7 @@
> > *
> > * Note: the mempool implementation is not preemptable. A lcore must
> > * not be interrupted by another task that uses the same mempool
> > - * (because it uses a ring which is not preemptable). Also, mempool
> > - * functions must not be used outside the DPDK environment: for
> > - * example, in linuxapp environment, a thread that is not created by
> > - * the EAL must not use mempools. This is due to the per-lcore cache
> > - * that won't work as rte_lcore_id() will not return a correct value.
> > + * (because it uses a ring which is not preemptible).
> > */
> >
> > #include <stdio.h>
>
> I agree the comment is not correct today. But I think we should still highlight
> that usual functions [ex: rte_mempool_get(), rte_mempool_put()] won't work
> when called on a non-EAL thread.
My understanding is that non-EAL threads can call those functions, but their performance will suffer since they go directly to the underlying ring. Is that correct?
>
> Maybe it could be reworded in that way:
>
> """
> Note: the mempool implementation is not preemptable. A lcore must not be
> interrupted by another task that uses the same mempool (because it uses a ring
> which is not preemptible). Also, usual mempool functions like
> rte_mempool_get() or rte_mempool_put() are designed to be called from an
> EAL thread due to the internal per-lcore cache. When using a mempool from a
> non-EAL thread, a user cache has to be provided to
> rte_mempool_generic_get() or rte_mempool_generic_put().
> """
>
> What do you think?
Agreed, this looks better. If indeed non-EAL threads can call rte_mempool_get() and _put(), perhaps the last sentence can be reworked like so?
Due to the lack of caching, rte_mempool_get() or rte_mempool_put() performance
will suffer when called by non-EAL threads. Instead, non-EAL threads should call
rte_mempool_generic_get() or rte_mempool_generic_put() with a user cache
created with rte_mempool_cache_create().
>
> Thanks,
> Olivier
More information about the dev
mailing list