From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E62CA0096 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 21:17:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2453E4C95; Thu, 9 May 2019 21:17:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DEA37B7 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 21:17:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB26224011; Thu, 9 May 2019 15:17:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 May 2019 15:17:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=SXh5AuTFQloLj5eyPJVpBn4eYARta019p7q9BkGhkwc=; b=g5lmo6ltZ+kS FQYkby835G88R2d5NTX3KPnpdnTfjZ7aEzp4GBHAY8R6rdhHAwGmoHoH1TEdAN+G 9X+xIi3K3rRdkkClbt29zDL8nhpNYJ3Epmbv0o+oFdU9+NOhv/y8mt2NJfn2mYYY oiZW70YIyntZi3/UK/mdL0ioZtVk3MY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=SXh5AuTFQloLj5eyPJVpBn4eYARta019p7q9BkGhk wc=; b=TlMDp5kjc/uMY9nbbc7Eu7Ouyiik+Q92IexgQ+nzLDIXLKhYI6QkEEKGz GtJDPjLcrKnisTRgJGWqQgbAIHy4WY6JGVvJXQXDNZeoCBNvuBuc9w6L6bjYdd27 JwA5ZswiV6XBAc8QEAuI+dohg3GOhP2E7MpnHPCaw3QOXXH+hdMvSeGMCc6AjtcI J51q/AVQbko36+SJF2/cSsSaKMdAKBz8tWUP0KCaxYNEWs3DbiMkQyAK+5BGW0oF NG/I6bIKlcopCLkvHqBIqdTS+rSOYN3aLdYqy0ZAxBpCh6FUnvurdg0wBkX5ptlj b1VcONdTApD1niX1obDRV0Ir8rF7g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrkeeigdejgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepud X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4188E1037C; Thu, 9 May 2019 15:17:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Nikhil Rao Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jerinj@marvell.com, matias.elo@nokia.com Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 21:17:52 +0200 Message-ID: <51938683.yaEMjVf3gu@xps> In-Reply-To: <1557377440-11616-1-git-send-email-nikhil.rao@intel.com> References: <1557376797-10609-1-git-send-email-nikhil.rao@intel.com> <1557377440-11616-1-git-send-email-nikhil.rao@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eventdev: fix Rx adapter event flush logic X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190509191752.NgK3gT-2_DXxjmbz4R6C6pOhion1uNrAESNmhu6NmrU@z> 09/05/2019 06:50, Nikhil Rao: > The Rx adapter flushes events only if it has BATCH_SIZE > events buffered where BATCH_SIZE is set to 32, e.g., if a > single packet is sent, it is never passed to > eventdev. Fix this issue by adding an event buffer flush > either when a Rx queue is found to be empty or the adapter service > function has processed the max number of packets for an invocation. > > Bugzilla ID: 277 > > Fixes: 6b83f5935543 ("eventdev: add event buffer flush in Rx adapter") > > Reported-by: Matias Elo > > Signed-off-by: Nikhil Rao > --- > --- a/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c > +++ b/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c > @@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ static uint16_t rxa_gcd_u16(uint16_t a, uint16_t b) > - if (buf->count >= BATCH_SIZE) > + if (buf->count) I don't this code, but it looks you are removing a test which was probably done on purpose. By the way, you should make your test explicit with "!= 0".