On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 06:38:06PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> >>>+static inline void __attribute__((always_inline))
> >>>+flush_used_ring(struct virtio_net *dev, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
> >>>+ uint32_t used_idx_start)
> >>>+{
> >>>+ if (used_idx_start + vq->shadow_used_idx < vq->size) {
> >>>+ rte_memcpy(&vq->used->ring[used_idx_start],
> >>>+ &vq->shadow_used_ring[0],
> >>>+ vq->shadow_used_idx *
> >>>+ sizeof(struct vring_used_elem));
> >>>+ vhost_log_used_vring(dev, vq,
> >>>+ offsetof(struct vring_used,
> >>>+ ring[used_idx_start]),
> >>>+ vq->shadow_used_idx *
> >>>+ sizeof(struct vring_used_elem));
> >>>+ } else {
> >>>+ uint32_t part_1 = vq->size - used_idx_start;
> >>>+ uint32_t part_2 = vq->shadow_used_idx - part_1;
> >>>+
> >>>+ rte_memcpy(&vq->used->ring[used_idx_start],
> >>>+ &vq->shadow_used_ring[0],
> >>>+ part_1 *
> >>>+ sizeof(struct vring_used_elem));
> >>>+ vhost_log_used_vring(dev, vq,
> >>>+ offsetof(struct vring_used,
> >>>+ ring[used_idx_start]),
> >>>+ part_1 *
> >>>+ sizeof(struct vring_used_elem));
> >>>+ rte_memcpy(&vq->used->ring[0],
> >>>+ &vq->shadow_used_ring[part_1],
> >>>+ part_2 *
> >>>+ sizeof(struct vring_used_elem));
> >>>+ vhost_log_used_vring(dev, vq,
> >>>+ offsetof(struct vring_used,
> >>>+ ring[0]),
> >>>+ part_2 *
> >>>+ sizeof(struct vring_used_elem));
> >>>+ }
> >>> }
> >>Is expanding the code done for performance purpose?
> >
> >Hi Maxime,
> >
> >Yes theoretically this has the least branch number.
> >And I think the logic is simpler this way.
> Ok, in that case, maybe you could create a function to
> do the rte_memcpy and the vhost_log_used on a given range.
Agreed, that will be better; it could avoid repeating similar code
block 3 times.
> I don't have a strong opinion on this, if Yuanhan is fine
> with current code, that's ok for me.
>From what I know, that's kind of DPDK prefered way, to expand code
when necessary. For example, 9ec201f5d6e7 ("mbuf: provide bulk
allocation").
So I'm fine with it.
--yliu
