> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@huawei.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 5:20 PM
> To: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>; tho...@monjalon.net; Bruce
> Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [RFC] ethdev: TX mbuf fast release optimization
>
>
> > For TX mbuf fast release offload, I propose to add the mbuf mempool
> > pointer to the ethdev tx queue configuration structure,
> > so the ethdev TX burst operation doesn't need to fetch it from the
> > first mbuf of each burst being fast free'd to the mempool.
> >
> > This modification of the struct rte_eth_txconf, and the requirement
> > to set the mempool pointer if the RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_MBUF_FAST_FREE
> > flag is set, will be an API+ABI change in 25.11.
> > Should it be announced in the 25.07 release notes?
> >
> > Note: We could phase it in softly by letting the ethdev drivers
> > check if the pointer has been set, and fall back to fetching it
> > from mbuf[0] if not.
> >
> > /**
> > * A structure used to configure a Tx ring of an Ethernet port.
> > */
> > struct rte_eth_txconf {
> > struct rte_eth_thresh tx_thresh; /**< Tx ring threshold registers. */
> > uint16_t tx_rs_thresh; /**< Drives the setting of RS bit on TXDs. */
> > uint16_t tx_free_thresh; /**< Start freeing Tx buffers if there are
> > less free descriptors than this value. */
> >
> > uint8_t tx_deferred_start; /**< Do not start queue with
> > rte_eth_dev_start(). */
> > /**
> > * Per-queue Tx offloads to be set using RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_* flags.
> > * Only offloads set on tx_queue_offload_capa or tx_offload_capa
> > * fields on rte_eth_dev_info structure are allowed to be set.
> > */
> > uint64_t offloads;
> >
> > + /**
> > + * Per-queue mempool to release the mbufs to; required for
> > + * RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_MBUF_FAST_FREE offload.
> > + */
> > + struct rte_mempool *mp;
> > +
>
> Even though I usually recommend to use MBUF_FAST_FREE -
Correction, meant to say: I usually recommend not to use MBUF_FAST_FREE.
The rest remains the same :)
> that's probably a good change.
> At least people will realize that they have to provide a single mempool
> per TX queue when they enable FAST_FREE flag.
> One naming suggestion I have - can we name it somehow more informative:
> 'fast_free_mp' or so?
> Also, we can update tx_queue_setup() to catch the situation when FAST_FREE
> is set but mp is NULL, or visa-versa.
> Again drivers can probably add extra check when debug is enabled, that
> all mbufs are exactly from that mempool.
>
>
> > uint64_t reserved_64s[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
> > void *reserved_ptrs[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
> > };
> >
