From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF652C2F for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 16:10:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2017 07:10:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,354,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="88387335" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.81]) ([10.237.220.81]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2017 07:10:22 -0700 To: Michael Lilja , dev@dpdk.org References: <20170517103807.18746-1-ml@napatech.com> <20170517134518.10838-1-ml@napatech.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:10:22 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170517134518.10838-1-ml@napatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6] net/i40e: improved 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: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:10:25 -0000 On 5/17/2017 2:45 PM, Michael Lilja wrote: > Previously, the FDIR programming time is +11ms on i40e. > This patch will result in an average programming time of > 22usec with a max of 60usec . > > Signed-off-by: Michael Lilja Please cc maintainers in the patch. > > --- > v6: > * Fixed code style issues > > v5: > * Reinitialization of "i" inconsistent with original intent > > v4: > * Code style fix > > v3: > * Replaced commit message > > v2: > * Code style fix > > v1: > * Initial version > --- > --- > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c | 26 +++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c > index 28cc554f5..16cb963ce 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c > @@ -1295,28 +1295,28 @@ i40e_fdir_filter_programming(struct i40e_pf *pf, > /* Update the tx tail register */ > 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); > + i = 0; This is extracted out of "for" to stay in 80 columns limit, but instead what do you think: Create a variable, something like "wait_us_count": wait_us_count = I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT * I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US; and used it below three times, and lines will stay in limit. > + for (; 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)) Old indentation was correct I think, that is to differentiate the code in below line easily. > 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."); > return -ETIMEDOUT; > } > /* totally delay 10 ms to check programming status*/ > - rte_delay_us((I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT - i) * I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US); > - if (i40e_check_fdir_programming_status(rxq) < 0) { > - PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to program FDIR filter:" > - " programming status reported."); > - return -ENOSYS; > + for (; i < (I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT * I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US); i++) { > + if (i40e_check_fdir_programming_status(rxq) >= 0) > + return 0; > + rte_delay_us(1); > } > - > - return 0; > + PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to program FDIR filter:" > + " programming status reported."); > + return -ETIMEDOUT; > } > > /* >