Hi Olivier,
On 10/05/2016 01:56 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On 10/03/2016 02:51 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c
>>> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
>>> #include <rte_string_fns.h>
>>> #include <rte_errno.h>
>>> #include <rte_byteorder.h>
>>> +#include <rte_net.h>
>>>
>>> #include "virtio_logs.h"
>>> #include "virtio_ethdev.h"
>>> @@ -627,6 +628,56 @@ virtio_update_packet_stats(struct virtnet_stats
>>> *stats, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/* Optionally fill offload information in structure */
>>> +static int
>>> +virtio_rx_offload(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct virtio_net_hdr *hdr)
>>> +{
>>> + struct rte_net_hdr_lens hdr_lens;
>>> + uint32_t hdrlen, ptype;
>>> + int l4_supported = 0;
>>> +
>>> + /* nothing to do */
>>> + if (hdr->flags == 0 && hdr->gso_type == VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_NONE)
>>> + return 0;
>> Maybe we could first check whether offload features were negotiated?
>> Doing this, we could return before accessing the header and so avoid a
>> cache miss.
>
> Yes, doing this would avoid reading the virtio header when the rx
> function is virtio_recv_pkts(). When using virtio_recv_mergeable_pkts(),
> it won't have a big impact since we already need to read hdr->num_buffers.
Right, it matters only for the non-mergeable buffers case.
>
>
> I plan to do something like this in both recv functions:
>
> @@ -854,6 +854,7 @@ virtio_recv_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf
> **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts)
> int error;
> uint32_t i, nb_enqueued;
> uint32_t hdr_size;
> + uint64_t features;
> struct virtio_net_hdr *hdr;
>
> nb_used = VIRTQUEUE_NUSED(vq);
> @@ -872,6 +873,7 @@ virtio_recv_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf
> **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts)
> nb_rx = 0;
> nb_enqueued = 0;
> hdr_size = hw->vtnet_hdr_size;
> + features = hw->guest_features;
>
> for (i = 0; i < num ; i++) {
> rxm = rcv_pkts[i];
> @@ -903,7 +905,8 @@ virtio_recv_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf
> **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts)
> rte_vlan_strip(rxm);
>
> /* Update offload features */
> - if (virtio_rx_offload(rxm, hdr) < 0) {
> + if ((features & VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM) &&
s/VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM/(1u << VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM)/
And don't forget to update the test for LRO patch.
Except this, it sounds good.
Thanks,
Maxime
> + virtio_rx_offload(rxm, hdr) < 0) {
> virtio_discard_rxbuf(vq, rxm);
> rxvq->stats.errors++;
> continue;
>
> Thank you for the feedback.
> Olivier
>
