Re: [PATCH 2/5] net/mlx5: free buffers in bulk on Tx completion

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:30:47PM +0200, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote:

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 04:04:00PM -0700, Yongseok Koh wrote:

quoted

When processing Tx completion, it is more efficient to free buffers in bulk
using rte_mempool_put_bulk() if buffers are from a same mempool.

Signed-off-by: Yongseok Koh <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
index 43db06ad8..d81d630f7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c

@@ -264,6 +264,8 @@ txq_complete(struct txq *txq)
 	uint16_t cq_ci = txq->cq_ci;
 	volatile struct mlx5_cqe *cqe = NULL;
 	volatile struct mlx5_wqe_ctrl *ctrl;
+	struct rte_mbuf *m, *free[elts_n];
+	unsigned int blk_n = 0;
 
 	do {
 		volatile struct mlx5_cqe *tmp;

@@ -296,21 +298,37 @@ txq_complete(struct txq *txq)
 	assert((elts_tail & elts_m) < (1 << txq->wqe_n));
 	/* Free buffers. */
 	while (elts_free != elts_tail) {
-		struct rte_mbuf *elt = (*txq->elts)[elts_free & elts_m];
-		struct rte_mbuf *elt_next =
-			(*txq->elts)[(elts_free + 1) & elts_m];
-
+		m = rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg((*txq->elts)[elts_free++ & elts_m]);
+		if (likely(m != NULL)) {
+			if (blk_n) {
+				if (likely(m->pool == free[0]->pool)) {
+					free[blk_n++] = m;
+				} else {
+					rte_mempool_put_bulk(
+							free[0]->pool,
+							(void *)free,
+							blk_n);

The indentation is strange here, free[0] should be on the same line as
rte_mempool_put_bulk.

quoted

+					free[0] = m;
+					blk_n = 1;
+				}
+			} else {
+				free[0] = m;
+				blk_n = 1;
+			}
+		}

This loop could be smaller, blk_n can only be equal to 0 in the first
iteration, otherwise is >= 1.
The first if statement can be merged with the second one: 

	if (likely(m != NULL)) {
		if (likely(blk_n && m->pool == free[0]->pool)) {

This condition is a wrong also, it should be !blk_n || (m->pool ...

Why don't you keep a pointer to the mpool (e.g. m->pool == pool)?  It
seems to cost a little to deference two pointers to reach the pool's
one.

Thanks,

-- 
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND