From: jigsaw <jigsaw@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 答复: [PATCH] Add user defined tag calculation callback tolibrte_distributor.
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 16:52:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHVfvh6HxAVynbvCXFESMfFyHpiaLkgUPwM7eWEjNAF53qJDXg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141107144410.GC12092@bricha3-MOBL3>
Yeah that's better. As below, right?
@@ -290,6 +294,7 @@ rte_distributor_process(struct rte_distributor *d,
match |= (!(d->in_flight_tags[i] ^ new_tag)
<< i);
+ match &= d->in_flight_bitmask;
if (match) {
next_mb = NULL;
unsigned worker = __builtin_ctz(match);
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com
> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 04:31:18PM +0200, jigsaw wrote:
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > Pls have a quick look at the diff to see if this is exactly what you mean
> > about the bitmask.
> > I just wrote it without even compiling, just to express the idea. So it
> may
> > leave some places unpatched.
> > If this is agreed, I will make a decent test to verify it before sending
> > the patch for RFC.
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c
> > b/lib/librte_distributor/rte_di
> > index 585ff88..d606bcf 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c
> > @@ -92,6 +92,8 @@ struct rte_distributor {
> > unsigned num_workers; /**< Number of workers
> > polling */
> >
> > uint32_t in_flight_tags[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
> > + uint32_t in_flight_bitmask;
> > +
> > struct rte_distributor_backlog backlog[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
> >
> > union rte_distributor_buffer bufs[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
> > @@ -188,6 +190,7 @@ static inline void
> > handle_worker_shutdown(struct rte_distributor *d, unsigned wkr)
> > {
> > d->in_flight_tags[wkr] = 0;
> > + d->in_flight_mask &= ~(1 << wkr);
> > d->bufs[wkr].bufptr64 = 0;
> > if (unlikely(d->backlog[wkr].count != 0)) {
> > /* On return of a packet, we need to move the
> > @@ -241,6 +244,7 @@ process_returns(struct rte_distributor *d)
> > else {
> > d->bufs[wkr].bufptr64 =
> RTE_DISTRIB_GET_BUF;
> > d->in_flight_tags[wkr] = 0;
> > + d->in_flight_mask &= ~(1 << wkr);
> > }
> > oldbuf = data >> RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS;
> > } else if (data & RTE_DISTRIB_RETURN_BUF) {
> > @@ -282,12 +286,13 @@ rte_distributor_process(struct rte_distributor *d,
> > next_mb = mbufs[next_idx++];
> > next_value = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)next_mb)
> > << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS);
> > - new_tag = (next_mb->hash.rss | 1);
> > + new_tag = next_mb->hash.rss;
> >
> > uint32_t match = 0;
> > unsigned i;
> > for (i = 0; i < d->num_workers; i++)
> > - match |= (!(d->in_flight_tags[i] ^
> new_tag)
> > + match |= (((!(d->in_flight_tags[i] ^
> > new_tag)) &
> > + (d->in_flight_bitmask >>
> i))
>
> I would not do the bitmask comparison here, as that's extra instruction in
> the
> loop. Instead, because its a bitmask, build up the match variable as it was
> before, and then just do a single and operation afterwards, outside the
> loop
> body.
>
> /Bruce
>
> > << i);
> >
> > if (match) {
> > @@ -309,6 +314,7 @@ rte_distributor_process(struct rte_distributor *d,
> > else {
> > d->bufs[wkr].bufptr64 = next_value;
> > d->in_flight_tags[wkr] = new_tag;
> > + d->in_flight_bitmask |= 1 << wkr;
> > next_mb = NULL;
> > }
> > oldbuf = data >> RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS;
> >
> >
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-07 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-05 13:30 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Add user defined tag calculation callback to librte_distributor Qinglai Xiao
2014-11-05 14:27 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-11-05 15:11 ` jigsaw
2014-11-05 16:36 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-11-05 17:24 ` jigsaw
2014-11-06 9:22 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-11-06 10:14 ` jigsaw
2014-11-06 10:36 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-06 12:36 ` [dpdk-dev] 答复: [PATCH] Add user defined tag calculation callback tolibrte_distributor Qinglai Xiao
2014-11-06 13:59 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-11-06 18:01 ` jigsaw
2014-11-06 19:52 ` jigsaw
2014-11-07 9:45 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-11-07 12:38 ` jigsaw
2014-11-07 13:53 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-11-07 14:31 ` jigsaw
[not found] ` <20141107144410.GC12092@bricha3-MOBL3>
2014-11-07 14:52 ` jigsaw [this message]
2014-11-07 15:04 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-11-07 15:18 ` jigsaw
2014-11-06 13:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] distributor: add comments to make code more readable Bruce Richardson
2014-11-07 14:08 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-07 14:31 ` jigsaw
2014-11-06 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Add user defined tag calculation callback to librte_distributor Bruce Richardson
2014-11-05 15:13 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-11-05 15:24 ` jigsaw
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=CAHVfvh6HxAVynbvCXFESMfFyHpiaLkgUPwM7eWEjNAF53qJDXg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jigsaw@gmail.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/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).