Hi Bruce: > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 7:32 PM > To: Zhang, Helin <helin.zh...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] net/i40e: eliminate mbuf write on rearm > > With the mbuf rework, we now have 8 contiguous bytes to be rearmed in the > mbuf just before the 8-bytes of olflags. If we don't do the rearm write inside > the descriptor ring replenishment function, and delay it to receiving the > packet, we can do a single 16B write inside the RX function to set both the > rearm data, and the flags together. > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > --- > V2: fix a checkpatch warning. One warning remains, which is being left > as-is as the code line in question is being removed by patch 2. > --- > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c | 46 > +++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c > b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c > index fdd4a34..c43d1c3 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx_vec_sse.c > @@ -82,19 +82,10 @@ i40e_rxq_rearm(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq) > /* Initialize the mbufs in vector, process 2 mbufs in one loop */ > for (i = 0; i < RTE_I40E_RXQ_REARM_THRESH; i += 2, rxep += 2) { > __m128i vaddr0, vaddr1; > - uintptr_t p0, p1; > > mb0 = rxep[0].mbuf; > mb1 = rxep[1].mbuf; > > - /* Flush mbuf with pkt template. > - * Data to be rearmed is 6 bytes long. > - */ > - p0 = (uintptr_t)&mb0->rearm_data; > - *(uint64_t *)p0 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > - p1 = (uintptr_t)&mb1->rearm_data; > - *(uint64_t *)p1 = rxq->mbuf_initializer; > - > /* load buf_addr(lo 64bit) and buf_physaddr(hi 64bit) */ > vaddr0 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&mb0->buf_addr); > vaddr1 = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i *)&mb1->buf_addr); @@ > -125,6 +116,13 @@ i40e_rxq_rearm(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq) > I40E_PCI_REG_WRITE(rxq->qrx_tail, rx_id); } > > +static inline void > +desc_to_olflags_v(struct i40e_rx_queue *rxq, __m128i descs[4] > __rte_unused, > + struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts)
Should we change the function name? since its scope is changed. I'm Ok with all the other part. Thanks Qi
