2016-02-29 12:51, Panu Matilainen:

On 02/24/2016 03:23 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:

quoted

From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Panu Matilainen

quoted

On 02/23/2016 07:35 AM, Xie, Huawei wrote:

quoted

On 2/22/2016 10:52 PM, Xie, Huawei wrote:

quoted

On 2/4/2016 1:24 AM, Olivier MATZ wrote:

quoted

On 01/27/2016 02:56 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:

quoted

Since rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() is an inline function, it is not part of
the library ABI and should not be listed in the version map.

I assume its inline for performance reasons, but then you lose the
benefits of dynamic linking such as ability to fix bugs and/or improve
itby just updating the library. Since the point of having a bulk API is
to improve performance by reducing the number of calls required, does it
really have to be inline? As in, have you actually measured the
difference between inline and non-inline and decided its worth all the
downsides?

Agree with Panu. It would be interesting to compare the performance
between inline and non inline to decide whether inlining it or not.

Will update after i gathered more data. inline could show obvious
performance difference in some cases.

Panu and Oliver:
I write a simple benchmark. This benchmark run 10M rounds, in each round
8 mbufs are allocated through bulk API, and then freed.
These are the CPU cycles measured(Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 0 @
2.70GHz, CPU isolated, timer interrupt disabled, rcu offloaded).
Btw, i have removed some exceptional data, the frequency of which is
like 1/10. Sometimes observed user usage suddenly disappeared, no clue
what happened.

With 8 mbufs allocated, there is about 6% performance increase using inline.

[...]

quoted

With 16 mbufs allocated, we could still observe obvious performance
difference, though only 1%-2%

[...]

quoted

With 32/64 mbufs allocated, the deviation of the data itself would hide
the performance difference.
So we prefer using inline for performance.

At least I was more after real-world performance in a real-world
use-case rather than CPU cycles in a microbenchmark, we know function
calls have a cost but the benefits tend to outweight the cons.

Inline functions have their place and they're far less evil in project
internal use, but in library public API they are BAD and should be ...
well, not banned because there are exceptions to every rule, but highly
discouraged.

Why is that?

For all the reasons static linking is bad, and what's worse it forces 
the static linking badness into dynamically linked builds.

If there's a bug (security or otherwise) in a library, a distro wants to 
supply an updated package which fixes that bug and be done with it. But 
if that bug is in an inlined code, supplying an update is not enough, 
you also need to recompile everything using that code, and somehow 
inform customers possibly using that code that they need to not only 
update the library but to recompile their apps as well. That is 
precisely the reason distros go to great lenghts to avoid *any* 
statically linked apps and libs in the distro, completely regardless of 
the performance overhead.

In addition, inlined code complicates ABI compatibility issues because 
some of the code is one the "wrong" side, and worse, it bypasses all the 
other ABI compatibility safeguards like soname and symbol versioning.

Like said, inlined code is fine for internal consumption, but incredibly 
bad for public interfaces. And of course, the more complicated a 
function is, greater the potential of needing bugfixes.

Mind you, none of this is magically specific to this particular 
function. Except in the sense that bulk operations offer a better way of 
performance improvements than just inlining everything.

quoted

As you can see right now we have all mbuf alloc/free routines as static inline.
And I think we would like to keep it like that.
So why that particular function should be different?

Because there's much less need to have it inlined since the function 
call overhead is "amortized" by the fact its doing bulk operations. "We 
always did it that way" is not a very good reason :)

quoted

After all that function is nothing more than a wrapper
around rte_mempool_get_bulk()  unrolled by 4 loop {rte_pktmbuf_reset()}
So unless mempool get/put API would change, I can hardly see there could be any ABI
breakages in future.
About 'real world' performance gain - it was a 'real world' performance problem,
that we tried to solve by introducing that function:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017633.html

And according to the user feedback, it does help:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033203.html

The question is not whether the function is useful, not at all. The 
question is whether the real-world case sees any measurable difference 
in performance if the function is made non-inline.

This is a valid question, and it applies to a large part of DPDK.
But it's something to measure and change more globally than just
a new function.
Generally speaking, any effort to reduce the size of the exported headers
will be welcome.

That said, this patch won't be blocked.