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 at 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;
> >
> >
> >
>
