> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 10:56 AM
> To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
> Cc: Wang, Zhihong <zhihong.wang at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] vhost: batch update used ring
>
> 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.
Okay. Thanks for the suggestion, Maxime and Yuanhan.
>
> > 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
