From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B312C348 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:15:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2015 04:15:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,608,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="535744002" Received: from kmsmsx152.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.87]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2015 04:15:31 -0700 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.110.14) by KMSMSX152.gar.corp.intel.com (172.21.73.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:15:30 +0800 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.126]) by SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:15:29 +0800 From: "Liang, Cunming" To: Zoltan Kiss , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ixgbe: remove vector pmd burst size restriction Thread-Index: AQHQzofKfv1tkDXaa0C6IdkcPfmc4537BUgAgACobaA= Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:15:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1438330669-25942-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> <1438673558-13284-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> <55C07F8A.6070202@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <55C07F8A.6070202@linaro.org> Accept-Language: zh-CN, 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] ixgbe: remove vector pmd burst size restriction 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: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:15:58 -0000 Hi Zoltan, > > } else if (adapter->rx_vec_allowed) { > > PMD_INIT_LOG(DEBUG, "Vector rx enabled, please make sure RX " > > - "burst size no less than 32."); > > + "burst size no less than " > > + "RTE_IXGBE_DESCS_PER_LOOP(=3D4) (port=3D%d).", >=20 > I think you should write in this line: >=20 > "%d (port=3D%d)", RTE_IXGBE_DESCS_PER_LOOP, > > + dev->data->port_id); > > Ok, it looks better, will take it. [...] > > uint16_t > > ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts_vec(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pk= ts, > > uint16_t nb_pkts) > > { > > struct ixgbe_rx_queue *rxq =3D rx_queue; > > - uint8_t split_flags[RTE_IXGBE_VPMD_RX_BURST] =3D {0}; > > + uint8_t split_flags[RTE_IXGBE_MAX_RX_BURST] =3D {0}; > > > > /* get some new buffers */ > > uint16_t nb_bufs =3D _recv_raw_pkts_vec(rxq, rx_pkts, nb_pkts, >=20 > I don't know if it actually matters from performance point of view, but > you check the whole split_flags array, even if you received only 4 > packets. Though the overhead of the a for loop might be bigger. >=20 v2 here just roll back the change. The size of array is constant. It won't loop much, always compare 4 times '= split_fl64[]=3D=3D0'. As you said, I ever sent another variable aplit_flags with loop, only very = tiny performance difference. As the patch is not trying to improve the performance here, any improvement= I propose to make it in another patch.