Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c: Improved i40e FDIR programming times

["Xing, Beilei" <beilei.xing@intel.com>]

Hi Lijia,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lilja
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 6:21 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Michael Lilja <ml@napatech.com>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c: Improved i40e
> FDIR programming times
> 
> During my work (https://www.napatech.com/hw-acceleration-via-rte_flow/)
> on a flowtable application example that use rte_flow I discovered that the
> rte_flow programming times on a i40e was +11ms. The patch below result in
> an average programming time of 22usec with a max of 60usec instead of
> +11ms.
> 
> Could the following patch be useful? There might be a good reason for the
> original code, I'm unable to tell, so I will let it up to the maintainer to decide.

Thanks for the patch, it's useful, and this can be removed from the commit log.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Lilja <ml@napatech.com>
> 
> ---
> v2:
> * Code style fix
> ---
>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c index
> 28cc554f5..2162443f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c
> @@ -1296,23 +1296,28 @@ i40e_fdir_filter_programming(struct i40e_pf *pf,
>         rte_wmb();
>         I40E_PCI_REG_WRITE(txq->qtx_tail, txq->tx_tail);
> 
> -       for (i = 0; i < I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT; i++) {
> -               rte_delay_us(I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US);
> +       for (i = 0; i < (I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT *
> + I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US); i++) {
>                 if ((txdp->cmd_type_offset_bsz &
> -                               rte_cpu_to_le_64(I40E_TXD_QW1_DTYPE_MASK)) ==
> -                               rte_cpu_to_le_64(I40E_TX_DESC_DTYPE_DESC_DONE))
> +                       rte_cpu_to_le_64(I40E_TXD_QW1_DTYPE_MASK)) ==
> +                       rte_cpu_to_le_64(I40E_TX_DESC_DTYPE_DESC_DONE))
>                         break;
> +               rte_delay_us(1);
>         }
> -       if (i >= I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT) {
> +       if (i >= (I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT * I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US)) {
>                 PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to program FDIR filter:"
> -                           " time out to get DD on tx queue.");
> +                       " time out to get DD on tx queue.");
>                 return -ETIMEDOUT;
>         }
>         /* totally delay 10 ms to check programming status*/
> -       rte_delay_us((I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT - i) *
> I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US);
> +       for (i = 0; i < (I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT *
> I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US); i++) {
> +               i
f (i40e_check_fdir_programming_status(rxq) >= 0) {

Braces {} can be removed here according to the coding style.

> +                       break;
 
How about "return 0;" here?

> +               }
> +               rte_delay_us(1);
> +       }
>         if (i40e_check_fdir_programming_status(rxq) < 0) {

How about removing the if statement? as i40e_check_fdir_programming_status(rxq) has been executed in the above for loop.

>                 PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to program FDIR filter:"
> -                           " programming status reported.");
> +                               " programming status reported.");
>                 return -ENOSYS;
>         }
> 
> --
> 2.12.2
> 
> Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it may contain
> confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The information
> is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorized persons. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately
> and delete this e-mail from your system.