[dpdk-dev] mempool: rename functions with confusing names
Commit Message
The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
the name implied.
Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
* rte_mempool_unallocated_count to replace rte_mempool_count
* rte_mempool_allocated_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count
In this patch, the new functions are added, and the old ones are marked
as deprecated. All apps and examples that use the old functions are
updated to use the new functions.
Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
---
app/test/test_cryptodev.c | 6 ++---
app/test/test_cryptodev_perf.c | 6 ++---
app/test/test_mbuf.c | 4 +--
app/test/test_mempool.c | 4 +--
app/test/test_mempool_perf.c | 2 +-
doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 +++++
drivers/net/qede/qede_rxtx.c | 4 +--
examples/multi_process/l2fwd_fork/main.c | 3 ++-
examples/qos_sched/main.c | 2 --
lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c | 10 +++++--
lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_version.map | 1 +
12 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
Comments
2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson:
> The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
> names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
> elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
> the name implied.
>
> Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
> * rte_mempool_unallocated_count to replace rte_mempool_count
> * rte_mempool_allocated_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count
What about available/used instead of unallocated/allocated?
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson:
> > The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
> > names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
> > elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
> > the name implied.
> >
> > Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
> > * rte_mempool_unallocated_count to replace rte_mempool_count
> > * rte_mempool_allocated_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count
>
> What about available/used instead of unallocated/allocated?
>
I don't particularly mind what the name is, to be honest. I like "avail"
because it is shorter, but I'm a little uncertain about "used", because it
implies that the entries are finished with i.e. like a used match, or tissue :-)
How about "avail/in_use"?
/Bruce
On 6/29/16, 11:00 AM, "dev on behalf of Bruce Richardson" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org on behalf of bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson:
>> > The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
>> > names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
>> > elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
>> > the name implied.
>> >
>> > Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
>> > * rte_mempool_unallocated_count to replace rte_mempool_count
>> > * rte_mempool_allocated_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count
>>
>> What about available/used instead of unallocated/allocated?
>>
>
>I don't particularly mind what the name is, to be honest. I like "avail"
>because it is shorter, but I'm a little uncertain about "used", because it
>implies that the entries are finished with i.e. like a used match, or tissue :-)
>
>How about "avail/in_use"?
+1 for those names.
>
>/Bruce
>
On 06/29/2016 06:02 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 6/29/16, 11:00 AM, "dev on behalf of Bruce Richardson" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org on behalf of bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson:
>>>> The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
>>>> names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
>>>> elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
>>>> the name implied.
I agree the current API is not appropriate.
>>>> Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
>>>> * rte_mempool_unallocated_count to replace rte_mempool_count
>>>> * rte_mempool_allocated_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count
>>>
>>> What about available/used instead of unallocated/allocated?
>>>
>>
>> I don't particularly mind what the name is, to be honest. I like "avail"
>> because it is shorter, but I'm a little uncertain about "used", because it
>> implies that the entries are finished with i.e. like a used match, or tissue :-)
>>
>> How about "avail/in_use"?
>
> +1 for those names.
+1 too.
rte_mempool_avail_count()
rte_mempool_in_use_count()
Thanks
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:05 PM
> To: Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: rename functions with confusing
> names
>
>
>
> On 06/29/2016 06:02 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >
> > On 6/29/16, 11:00 AM, "dev on behalf of Bruce Richardson" <dev-
> bounces@dpdk.org on behalf of bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson:
> >>>> The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what
> >>>> their names suggested. The free_count function actually returned
> >>>> the number of elements that were allocated from the pool, not the
> >>>> number unallocated as the name implied.
>
> I agree the current API is not appropriate.
>
>
> >>>> Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
> >>>> * rte_mempool_unallocated_count to replace rte_mempool_count
> >>>> * rte_mempool_allocated_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count
> >>>
> >>> What about available/used instead of unallocated/allocated?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't particularly mind what the name is, to be honest. I like
> "avail"
> >> because it is shorter, but I'm a little uncertain about "used",
> >> because it implies that the entries are finished with i.e. like a
> >> used match, or tissue :-)
> >>
> >> How about "avail/in_use"?
> >
> > +1 for those names.
>
> +1 too.
>
> rte_mempool_avail_count()
> rte_mempool_in_use_count()
>
Ok, I'll see about doing a V2 for review.
/Bruce
@@ -316,12 +316,12 @@ testsuite_teardown(void)
if (ts_params->mbuf_pool != NULL) {
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, USER1, "CRYPTO_MBUFPOOL count %u\n",
- rte_mempool_count(ts_params->mbuf_pool));
+ rte_mempool_unallocated_count(ts_params->mbuf_pool));
}
if (ts_params->op_mpool != NULL) {
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, USER1, "CRYPTO_OP_POOL count %u\n",
- rte_mempool_count(ts_params->op_mpool));
+ rte_mempool_unallocated_count(ts_params->op_mpool));
}
}
@@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ ut_teardown(void)
if (ts_params->mbuf_pool != NULL)
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, USER1, "CRYPTO_MBUFPOOL count %u\n",
- rte_mempool_count(ts_params->mbuf_pool));
+ rte_mempool_unallocated_count(ts_params->mbuf_pool));
rte_cryptodev_stats_get(ts_params->valid_devs[0], &stats);
@@ -343,10 +343,10 @@ testsuite_teardown(void)
if (ts_params->mbuf_mp != NULL)
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, USER1, "CRYPTO_PERF_MBUFPOOL count %u\n",
- rte_mempool_count(ts_params->mbuf_mp));
+ rte_mempool_unallocated_count(ts_params->mbuf_mp));
if (ts_params->op_mpool != NULL)
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, USER1, "CRYPTO_PERF_OP POOL count %u\n",
- rte_mempool_count(ts_params->op_mpool));
+ rte_mempool_unallocated_count(ts_params->op_mpool));
}
static int
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ ut_teardown(void)
if (ts_params->mbuf_mp != NULL)
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, USER1, "CRYPTO_PERF_MBUFPOOL count %u\n",
- rte_mempool_count(ts_params->mbuf_mp));
+ rte_mempool_unallocated_count(ts_params->mbuf_mp));
rte_cryptodev_stats_get(ts_params->dev_id, &stats);
@@ -717,7 +717,7 @@ test_refcnt_iter(unsigned lcore, unsigned iter)
* - increment it's reference up to N+1,
* - enqueue it N times into the ring for slave cores to free.
*/
- for (i = 0, n = rte_mempool_count(refcnt_pool);
+ for (i = 0, n = rte_mempool_unallocated_count(refcnt_pool);
i != n && (m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(refcnt_pool)) != NULL;
i++) {
ref = RTE_MAX(rte_rand() % REFCNT_MAX_REF, 1UL);
@@ -745,7 +745,7 @@ test_refcnt_iter(unsigned lcore, unsigned iter)
/* check that all mbufs are back into mempool by now */
for (wn = 0; wn != REFCNT_MAX_TIMEOUT; wn++) {
- if ((i = rte_mempool_count(refcnt_pool)) == n) {
+ if ((i = rte_mempool_unallocated_count(refcnt_pool)) == n) {
refcnt_lcore[lcore] += tref;
printf("%s(lcore=%u, iter=%u) completed, "
"%u references processed\n",
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ test_mempool_basic(struct rte_mempool *mp)
/* tests that improve coverage */
printf("get object count\n");
- if (rte_mempool_count(mp) != MEMPOOL_SIZE - 1)
+ if (rte_mempool_unallocated_count(mp) != MEMPOOL_SIZE - 1)
RET_ERR();
printf("get private data\n");
@@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ test_mempool_basic_ex(struct rte_mempool *mp)
return ret;
}
printf("test_mempool_basic_ex now mempool (%s) has %u free entries\n",
- mp->name, rte_mempool_free_count(mp));
+ mp->name, rte_mempool_allocated_count(mp));
if (rte_mempool_full(mp) != 1) {
printf("test_mempool_basic_ex the mempool should be full\n");
goto fail_mp_basic_ex;
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ launch_cores(unsigned cores)
"n_put_bulk=%u n_keep=%u ",
(unsigned) mp->cache_size, cores, n_get_bulk, n_put_bulk, n_keep);
- if (rte_mempool_count(mp) != MEMPOOL_SIZE) {
+ if (rte_mempool_unallocated_count(mp) != MEMPOOL_SIZE) {
printf("mempool is not full\n");
return -1;
}
@@ -34,6 +34,12 @@ Deprecation Notices
compact API. The ones that remain are backwards compatible and use the
per-lcore default cache if available. This change targets release 16.07.
+* The APIs rte_mempool_count and rte_mempool_free_count are being deprecated
+ on the basis that they are confusing to use - free_count actually returns
+ the number of allocated entries, not the number of free entries as expected.
+ They are being replaced by rte_mempool_unallocated_count and
+ rte_mempool_allocated_count respectively.
+
* The mbuf flags PKT_RX_VLAN_PKT and PKT_RX_QINQ_PKT are deprecated and
are respectively replaced by PKT_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED and
PKT_RX_QINQ_STRIPPED, that are better described. The old flags and
@@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ static inline int qede_alloc_rx_buffer(struct qede_rx_queue *rxq)
"Failed to allocate rx buffer "
"sw_rx_prod %u sw_rx_cons %u mp entries %u free %u",
idx, rxq->sw_rx_cons & NUM_RX_BDS(rxq),
- rte_mempool_count(rxq->mb_pool),
- rte_mempool_free_count(rxq->mb_pool));
+ rte_mempool_unallocated_count(rxq->mb_pool),
+ rte_mempool_allocated_count(rxq->mb_pool));
return -ENOMEM;
}
rxq->sw_rx_ring[idx].mbuf = new_mb;
@@ -442,7 +442,8 @@ reset_slave_all_ports(unsigned slaveid)
pool = rte_mempool_lookup(buf_name);
if (pool)
printf("Port %d mempool free object is %u(%u)\n", slave->port[i],
- rte_mempool_count(pool), (unsigned)NB_MBUF);
+ rte_mempool_unallocated_count(pool),
+ (unsigned int)NB_MBUF);
else
printf("Can't find mempool %s\n", buf_name);
@@ -201,8 +201,6 @@ app_stat(void)
stats.oerrors - tx_stats[i].oerrors);
memcpy(&tx_stats[i], &stats, sizeof(stats));
- //printf("MP = %d\n", rte_mempool_count(conf->app_pktmbuf_pool));
-
#if APP_COLLECT_STAT
printf("-------+------------+------------+\n");
printf(" | received | dropped |\n");
@@ -905,8 +905,8 @@ rte_mempool_xmem_create(const char *name, unsigned n, unsigned elt_size,
}
/* Return the number of entries in the mempool */
-unsigned
-rte_mempool_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
+unsigned int
+rte_mempool_unallocated_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
{
unsigned count;
unsigned lcore_id;
@@ -928,6 +928,12 @@ rte_mempool_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
return count;
}
+unsigned int
+rte_mempool_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
+{
+ return rte_mempool_unallocated_count(mp);
+}
+
/* dump the cache status */
static unsigned
rte_mempool_dump_cache(FILE *f, const struct rte_mempool *mp)
@@ -1368,9 +1368,44 @@ rte_mempool_get(struct rte_mempool *mp, void **obj_p)
* @return
* The number of entries in the mempool.
*/
+unsigned int rte_mempool_unallocated_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp);
+
+/**
+ * @deprecated
+ * Return the number of entries in the mempool.
+ *
+ * When cache is enabled, this function has to browse the length of
+ * all lcores, so it should not be used in a data path, but only for
+ * debug purposes.
+ *
+ * @param mp
+ * A pointer to the mempool structure.
+ * @return
+ * The number of entries in the mempool.
+ */
+__rte_deprecated
unsigned rte_mempool_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp);
/**
+ * Return the number of elements which have been allocated from the mempool
+ *
+ * When cache is enabled, this function has to browse the length of
+ * all lcores, so it should not be used in a data path, but only for
+ * debug purposes.
+ *
+ * @param mp
+ * A pointer to the mempool structure.
+ * @return
+ * The number of free entries in the mempool.
+ */
+static inline unsigned int
+rte_mempool_allocated_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
+{
+ return mp->size - rte_mempool_unallocated_count(mp);
+}
+
+/**
+ * @deprecated
* Return the number of free entries in the mempool ring.
* i.e. how many entries can be freed back to the mempool.
*
@@ -1387,10 +1422,11 @@ unsigned rte_mempool_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp);
* @return
* The number of free entries in the mempool.
*/
+__rte_deprecated
static inline unsigned
rte_mempool_free_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
{
- return mp->size - rte_mempool_count(mp);
+ return rte_mempool_allocated_count(mp);
}
/**
@@ -1409,7 +1445,7 @@ rte_mempool_free_count(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
static inline int
rte_mempool_full(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
{
- return !!(rte_mempool_count(mp) == mp->size);
+ return !!(rte_mempool_unallocated_count(mp) == mp->size);
}
/**
@@ -1428,7 +1464,7 @@ rte_mempool_full(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
static inline int
rte_mempool_empty(const struct rte_mempool *mp)
{
- return !!(rte_mempool_count(mp) == 0);
+ return !!(rte_mempool_unallocated_count(mp) == 0);
}
/**
@@ -32,5 +32,6 @@ DPDK_16.07 {
rte_mempool_populate_virt;
rte_mempool_register_ops;
rte_mempool_set_ops_byname;
+ rte_mempool_unallocated_count;
} DPDK_2.0;