From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97228A328D for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:45:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C4B4C90; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:45:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-il1-f195.google.com (mail-il1-f195.google.com [209.85.166.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DB837B7 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:45:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-il1-f195.google.com with SMTP id l12so14664021ilq.4 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 01:45:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i6qhixLK1xmB0Te5IEy90pdai9RzcxSkczywofo+Fb0=; b=YbvYz+SzLU0pfTaNzcLTS/7WKinzctQise9Aa9exPidm4MYRvjE+WmMpAy6EG377az h8OyHfXppbPu7v0QKH5jNOF/yDS6MgnHRcXCGKtw+S7bmc7p2/jt4mEjh5/FrAExewXh 8fpner5AT1hawa7w4o/Rd6BLGC/WEjM46p7oWtqaiqzTGrWMan+6d8io1U75roEzIisj NUt//6YiQr/CsADZ8+JJM9ZqOdNVB7uS6MFd1H2cgIV9qkf7fThOrLnarsN4IRECYFp0 8GUwUsW7dzY9yUBniix1L2DHUA4OlYflzNE0n4uNnxsUT56XDKccnCRnvIxH/gL6/p/j aHlw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i6qhixLK1xmB0Te5IEy90pdai9RzcxSkczywofo+Fb0=; b=YSjHzEdXLBnZuioD0r5LfIMGIvVqvv2oOa3Z3Ljt/wDvzaZz/mk0fyEvdfdlDLur/+ sKTgBKfMuX8EJN4tQ6eRotLUp9/CnbD66mxSCZTb5jUzu8b9VapD58+Qw/Ucf22EZFqz bxxSmw1Jq6xc0GW+HUz2Y+3QE9MUpDqVtrMtt5AXHXa87qyT8wBnTqss5IK769CPi7MX igpHktC0oJIwlZf3E2H5/XuMHDZ/2TswJJo9s40Gd7RLPxhJ06hLQpEHiIdXkomsHMJF H8f6IXQ5B8O+dSs62HvItIHnyQUCBv+LDH9yjdU0zxsQTymMmbF2fhlkGDNJlgFAc95U hr5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXXBBKvee05QuEXwJ8waTTqVrBJQICCAog3w8NJhEJ9n3luGcL2 +wh3UT0sPm5n7jDAmlfyyJNJA8u+Jtt8SIPHPbM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyZrGkFgKRxDfYT368ba4nr/Ix5HWfqmCcTWQ4H/m/eTYV9zftt8kmdiMwzah6tQPOCnVP4liNz6wKvnhb0IyQ= X-Received: by 2002:a92:2c03:: with SMTP id t3mr30861450ile.271.1571733941502; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 01:45:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191001064641.28404-1-nipun.gupta@nxp.com> <1F668163772FA946975B9466A9DFF729EDED27A9@ORSMSX122.amr.corp.intel.com> <1F668163772FA946975B9466A9DFF729EDEEDCA7@ORSMSX122.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1F668163772FA946975B9466A9DFF729EDEEDCA7@ORSMSX122.amr.corp.intel.com> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:15:25 +0530 Message-ID: To: "Rao, Nikhil" Cc: Nipun Gupta , Jerin Jacob , dpdk-dev , Pavan Nikhilesh , Sunil Kumar Kori , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Kovacevic, Marko" , Ori Kam , "Nicolau, Radu" , "Kantecki, Tomasz" , "Van Haaren, Harry" , Hemant Agrawal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eventdev: flag to identify same destined packets enqueue 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" On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM Rao, Nikhil wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerinjacobk@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 3:57 PM > > To: Hemant Agrawal > > Cc: Rao, Nikhil ; Nipun Gupta ; > > Jerin Jacob ; dpdk-dev ; Pavan Nikhil= esh > > ; Sunil Kumar Kori ; > > Richardson, Bruce ; Kovacevic, Marko > > ; Ori Kam ; Nicolau, Rad= u > > ; Kantecki, Tomasz ; > > Van Haaren, Harry > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eventdev: flag to identify same destine= d > > packets enqueue > > > > > > > > > But I am not able to recollect, Why Nikhil would like to use the > > > > > separate functions. Nikhil could you remind us why > > > > > rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue() can not be used for sending th= e > > > > > packet for SW Tx adapter. > > > > > > > > > [Nikhil] The goal was to keep the workers using the loop below. > > > > > > > > while (1) { > > > > rte_event_dequeue_burst(...); > > > > (event processing) > > > > rte_event_enqueue_burst(...); } > > > > We do have specialized functions for specific enqueue use case like > > rte_event_enqueue_new_burst() or > > rte_event_enqueue_forward_burst() to avoid any performance impact. > > > > Since PMD agruments are same for rte_event_enqueue_burst() and > > rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue() > > assigning simple function pointer assignment to > > rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue as dev->txa_enqueue =3D > > dev->enqueue_burst > > would have worked to have same Tx function across all platfroms without > > peformance overhead. > > Offcouse I understand, Slow path direct event enqueue assigment needs > > different treatment. > > > > > > ie in fastpath. > > > > while (1) { > > rte_event_dequeue_burst(...); > > if (tx_stage) > > rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue()... > > } > > > > What do you say? > > > > Sorry missed this question previously - Unless I have misunderstood your = email, the event processing stage would have if conditions for each of the = stages (or minimally the tx stage), no disagreement on that, the only diffe= rence would be set up of the event[] arrays that are sent to rte_event_enq= ueue_burst() and rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue() resulting in an additio= nal call to rte_event_enqueue_burst(). If that=E2=80=99s true, since the ab= straction has a cost to it, should we be adding it ? It there is a cost then we should not be adding it. I think, the following scheme can avoid the cost by adding the following in a _slow path_ as the prototype of the driver API is the same. dev->txa_enqueue =3D dev->enqueue_burst; > > Nikhil