From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: rte_mbuf.next in 2nd cacheline
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:02:09 +0100
Message-ID: <20150615160208.GE580@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A838@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <557EDB91.9010503@6wind.com> <20150615141258.GA580@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <557EE1A0.609@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A8A8@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <557EECFF.3090402@6wind.com> <20150615152346.GC580@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A8FB@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20150615153943.GD580@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A91C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Damjan Marion \(damarion\)" <damarion@cisco.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2EAE72
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:02:13 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836A0A91C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 04:59:55PM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> As I can see, vector TX is the only one that calls __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() directly.
> All others use rte_pktmbuf_free_seg(), that does ' m->next = NULL' anyway.
> For vector TX - yes, need to verify that it would not introduce a slowdown.
> Konstantin
>

But if the function is only directly called from one place, and that doesn't
have a problem, why would we bother making any change at all?

/Bruce