On 2024/9/20 3:05, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 14:09:36 +0800
> "WanRenyong" <wa...@yunsilicon.com> wrote:
>
>> @@ -166,6 +169,7 @@ xsc_rx_burst(void *dpdk_rxq, struct rte_mbuf **pkts, 
>> uint16_t pkts_n)
>>              /* Fill wqe */
>>              wqe->va = rte_cpu_to_le_64(rte_pktmbuf_iova(rep));
>>              rte_pktmbuf_data_len(seg) = len;
>> +            rxq->stats.rx_bytes += rte_pktmbuf_pkt_len(pkt);
>>   
>>              *(pkts++) = pkt;
>>              pkt = NULL;
>> @@ -200,6 +204,7 @@ xsc_rx_burst(void *dpdk_rxq, struct rte_mbuf **pkts, 
>> uint16_t pkts_n)
>>              rxq->nb_rx_hold = 0;
>>      }
>>   
>> +    rxq->stats.rx_pkts += nb_pkts;
>>      return nb_pkts;
>>   }
> You can a small performance boost by keeping a total_bytes counter in 
> rx_burst function
> and only add it to rx_bytes after the loop.
Hello, Stephen,

Thanks for review. This a good suggestion, I'll take it.

-- 
Thanks,
WanRenyong

Reply via email to