DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jianbo Liu <jianbo.liu@linaro.org>
To: "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
Cc: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
	 "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ixgbe: avoid unnessary break when checking at the tail of rx hwring
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:51:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAP4Qi39rHsZR3qMBnRJgcoWGVjS8eDYcvfPoLxCZX1KBJm2eqQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090343BBF2@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>

Hi Wenzhuo,

On 16 March 2016 at 14:06, Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> HI Jianbo,
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jianbo Liu
>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:26 PM
>> To: Zhang, Helin; Ananyev, Konstantin; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Jianbo Liu
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ixgbe: avoid unnessary break when checking at the
>> tail of rx hwring
>>
>> When checking rx ring queue, it's possible that loop will break at the tail while
>> there are packets still in the queue header.
> Would you like to give more details about in what scenario this issue will be hit? Thanks.
>

vPMD will place extra RTE_IXGBE_DESCS_PER_LOOP - 1 number of empty
descriptiors at the end of hwring to avoid overflow when do checking
on rx side.

For the loop in _recv_raw_pkts_vec(), we check 4 descriptors each
time. If all 4 DD are set, and all 4 packets are received.That's OK in
the middle.
But if come to the end of hwring, and less than 4 descriptors left, we
still need to check 4 descriptors at the same time, so the extra empty
descriptors are checked with them.
This time, the number of received packets is apparently less than 4,
and we break out of the loop because of the condition "var !=
RTE_IXGBE_DESCS_PER_LOOP".
So the problem arises. It is possible that there could be more packets
at the hwring beginning that still waiting for being received.
I think this fix can avoid this situation, and at least reduce the
latency for the packets in the header.

Thanks!
Jianbo

  reply	other threads:[~2016-03-16  7:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-14 14:25 Jianbo Liu
2016-03-16  6:06 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2016-03-16  7:51   ` Jianbo Liu [this message]
2016-03-16 11:14     ` Bruce Richardson
2016-03-17  2:20       ` Jianbo Liu
2016-03-18 10:03         ` Bruce Richardson
2016-03-21  2:26           ` Jianbo Liu
2016-03-22 14:27             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-03-25  8:53               ` Jianbo Liu
2016-03-28  2:30                 ` Xu, Qian Q
2016-03-28  8:48                   ` Jianbo Liu
2016-06-17 10:09                     ` Bruce Richardson

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=CAP4Qi39rHsZR3qMBnRJgcoWGVjS8eDYcvfPoLxCZX1KBJm2eqQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jianbo.liu@linaro.org \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=wenzhuo.lu@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).