From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] net/i40e: eliminate mbuf write on rearm
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:26:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170407082654.GB11816@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061153088B73@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:24:44PM +0100, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> Hi Bruce:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 7:32 PM
> > To: Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> > <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] net/i40e: eliminate mbuf write on rearm
> >
> > With the mbuf rework, we now have 8 contiguous bytes to be rearmed in the
> > mbuf just before the 8-bytes of olflags. If we don't do the rearm write inside
> > the descriptor ring replenishment function, and delay it to receiving the
> > packet, we can do a single 16B write inside the RX function to set both the
> > rearm data, and the flags together.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > ---
> > V2: fix a checkpatch warning. One warning remains, which is being left
> > as-is as the code line in question is being removed by patch 2.
> > ---
> > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c | 46
> > +++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c
> > b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c
> > index fdd4a34..c43d1c3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c
> > @@ -82,19 +82,10 @@ i40e_rxq_rearm(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq)
> > /* Initialize the mbufs in vector, process 2 mbufs in one loop */
> > for (i = 0; i < RTE_I40E_RXQ_REARM_THRESH; i += 2, rxep += 2) {
> > __m128i vaddr0, vaddr1;
> > - uintptr_t p0, p1;
> >
> > mb0 = rxep[0].mbuf;
> > mb1 = rxep[1].mbuf;
> >
> > - /* Flush mbuf with pkt template.
> > - * Data to be rearmed is 6 bytes long.
> > - */
> > - p0 = (uintptr_t)&mb0->rearm_data;
> > - *(uint64_t *)p0 = rxq->mbuf_initializer;
> > - p1 = (uintptr_t)&mb1->rearm_data;
> > - *(uint64_t *)p1 = rxq->mbuf_initializer;
> > -
> > /* load buf_addr(lo 64bit) and buf_physaddr(hi 64bit) */
> > vaddr0 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&mb0->buf_addr);
> > vaddr1 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&mb1->buf_addr); @@
> > -125,6 +116,13 @@ i40e_rxq_rearm(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq)
> > I40E_PCI_REG_WRITE(rxq->qrx_tail, rx_id); }
> >
> > +static inline void
> > +desc_to_olflags_v(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq, __m128i descs[4]
> > __rte_unused,
> > + struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts)
>
>
> Should we change the function name? since its scope is changed.
> I'm Ok with all the other part.
>
> Thanks
> Qi
>
Yes, it perhaps should, though it's not a big deal IMHO. Alternatively,
the function should be changed to return the flags values as an output
and we do the writes themselves in the main rx function.
/Bruce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-07 8:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-03 14:39 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] reduce writes in i40e driver Bruce Richardson
2017-04-03 14:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: eliminate mbuf write on rearm Bruce Richardson
2017-04-03 14:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/i40e: remove option to disable offload flags Bruce Richardson
2017-04-03 14:45 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-04-03 14:51 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-04-06 5:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] reduce writes in i40e driver Jianbo Liu
2017-04-06 5:56 ` Jianbo Liu
2017-04-06 11:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 " Bruce Richardson
2017-04-06 11:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] net/i40e: eliminate mbuf write on rearm Bruce Richardson
2017-04-06 16:24 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2017-04-07 8:26 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2017-04-06 11:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] net/i40e: remove option to disable offload flags Bruce Richardson
2017-04-10 13:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] reduce writes in i40e driver Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170407082654.GB11816@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).