From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B608C234 for ; Mon, 15 May 2017 11:55:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2017 02:55:42 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,344,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="102182553" Received: from fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.202]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2017 02:55:42 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.17) by fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 15 May 2017 02:55:42 -0700 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.69) by fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 15 May 2017 02:55:41 -0700 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.193]) by SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.117]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 15 May 2017 17:55:40 +0800 From: "Xing, Beilei" To: Michael Lilja , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c: Improved i40e FDIR programming times Thread-Index: AQHSykBsgjttYBMhf0OqnOGMTSeHLKH1KgGA Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:55:38 +0000 Message-ID: <94479800C636CB44BD422CB454846E0131FAD9AC@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <20170511102115.26466-1-ml@napatech.com> In-Reply-To: <20170511102115.26466-1-ml@napatech.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c: Improved i40e FDIR programming times 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:55:44 -0000 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 > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c: Improved i40= e > FDIR programming times >=20 > During my work (https://www.napatech.com/hw-acceleration-via-rte_flow/) > on a flowtable application example that use rte_flow I discovered that th= e > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Michael Lilja >=20 > --- > v2: > * Code style fix > --- > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c | 21 +++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >=20 > 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); >=20 > - for (i =3D 0; i < I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT; i++) { > - rte_delay_us(I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US); > + for (i =3D 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)= ) =3D=3D > - rte_cpu_to_le_64(I40E_TX_DESC_DTYPE_DESC_= DONE)) > + rte_cpu_to_le_64(I40E_TXD_QW1_DTYPE_MASK)) =3D=3D > + rte_cpu_to_le_64(I40E_TX_DESC_DTYPE_DESC_DONE)) > break; > + rte_delay_us(1); > } > - if (i >=3D I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT) { > + if (i >=3D (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 =3D 0; i < (I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT * > I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US); i++) { > + i f (i40e_check_fdir_programming_status(rxq) >=3D 0) { Braces {} can be removed here according to the coding style. > + break; =20 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; > } >=20 > -- > 2.12.2 >=20 > Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it may contain > confidential information intended for the addressee(s) only. The informat= ion > is not to be surrendered or copied to unauthorized persons. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediatel= y > and delete this e-mail from your system.