From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57A02C5B for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:53:58 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p65so77105221wmp.0 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:53:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aQM0dWHs4lFFYtHCwSW4uRkPEIVhhuunMKy7udoWqYo=; b=tWeIlGo3jTBc02a+obBBcTA6u+ep6iTnUEsf3aWYYp5ugMSX6P4GEL9WU+76xIJDE3 LM2WWemdxXObL/JI9loITQWCY2xFPC9eUGolM3QhnOrDE5rlH2sDQ4cqscQCXHywMvk/ +HYdmbiK8LOl4Xh306ORL4rStH1/8cggjAs6hFlpdBFiYZSktoMJA6J51lGXGEClgZk+ C8LUAvrKFd4J/7ZAdrEBOGTo+OpobqOk1Q7g0573dXUdfVqJSvCudnR44UHCRUwSm9hP m8IKkZ8mazqXwygLXC8o02tWjMtWtv1l0pOOi+ioQhBk5ESV7F4tudjtgDfetgImAWeA x1Bg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aQM0dWHs4lFFYtHCwSW4uRkPEIVhhuunMKy7udoWqYo=; b=G7oRQZOgXe3pJqMJs/I6thhkOPEL8FdTYaPp7zphL5P7iugbJs6uNHz6PJHtZ7Atvh avocdL1bUBhdNP18Jj2NImc7Lhe6vgID2SiXA1P66D/RwudlkK8Nf9Ln8jYa8eujpyKi eGfiuYDZsRKEMUovFP1CH5a0wWSfnoRdP/Wb205N+YyEKtFR/o15gv0LqmfaN+z+rXi6 oNnJiazD8D1PGxKQvPDuSKk4OYqQdNKKcrP6bYN1tPB/QusTg1/qZ5bAUpBDricoPq3B S2bedQymxoNShmgmTJAhXIK1ZjuqalKvajgY0QcUx16p48PNCwzDdTVN7DM/is3Z1hWB 5r6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI8Bw0AEqbggML8cCVy0U4RzxWUeJGD0fqgw+PwEW6tdTi3vlprMiyb5EYAesBPWyWG X-Received: by 10.194.227.1 with SMTP id rw1mr34951010wjc.62.1457538838597; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (91.111.75.86.rev.sfr.net. [86.75.111.91]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 82sm24275043wmd.4.2016.03.09.07.53.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:53:57 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:52:18 +0100 Message-ID: <2507362.eR3Lu18VyN@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B1A669@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1452869038-9140-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> <5916803.8PiAMBcxJt@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B1A669@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] ethdev: add buffered tx api X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:53:58 -0000 2016-03-09 15:42, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > 2016-03-09 15:23, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > > > 2016-03-09 13:36, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > > + if (to_send == 0) > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > Why this check is done in the lib? > > > > > > What is the performance gain if we are idle? > > > > > > It can be done outside if needed. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that could be done outside, but if user has to do it anyway, > > > > > why not to put it inside? > > > > > I don't expect any performance gain/loss because of that - > > > > > just seems a bit more convenient to the user. > > > > > > > > It is handling an idle case so there is no gain obviously. > > > > But the condition branching is surely a loss. > > > > > > I suppose that condition should always be checked: > > > either in user code prior to function call or inside the > > > function call itself. > > > So don't expect any difference in performance here... > > > Do you have any particular example when you think it would? > > > Or are you talking about rte_eth_tx_buffer() calling > > > rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() internally? > > > For that one - both are flush is 'static inline' , so I expect > > > compiler be smart enough to remove this redundant check. > > > > > > > So why the user would you like to do this check? > > > Just for user convenience - to save him doing that manually. > > > > Probably I've missed something. If we remove this check, the function > > will do nothing, right? How is it changing the behaviour? > > If we'll remove that check, then > rte_eth_tx_burst(...,nb_pkts=0)->(*dev->tx_pkt_burst)(...,nb_pkts=0) > will be called. > So in that case it might be even slower, as we'll have to do a proper call. If there is no packet, we have time to do a useless call. > Of course user can avoid it by: > > If(tx_buffer->nb_pkts != 0) > rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush(port, queue, tx_buffer); > > But as I said what for to force user to do that? > Why not to make this check inside the function? Because it may be slower when there are some packets and will "accelerate" only the no-packet case. We do not progress in this discussion. It is not a big deal, just a non sense. So I agree to keep it if we change the website to announce that DPDK accelerates the idle processing ;)