On 9/8/2017 3:15 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
>
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> ---
> doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst | 4 +++-
> drivers/net/sfc/sfc_dp_tx.h | 2 ++
> drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ef10_tx.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c | 6 ++++++
> drivers/net/sfc/sfc_tx.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst b/doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst
> index 973a4a0..028b980 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst
> @@ -245,12 +245,14 @@ boolean parameters value.
> features available and required by the datapath implementation.
> **efx** chooses libefx-based datapath which supports VLAN insertion
> (full-feature firmware variant only), TSO and multi-segment mbufs.
> + Mbuf segments may come from different mempools, and mbuf reference
> + counters are treated responsibly.
This is also the case for ef10 native, right? Does it make sense to
document it in below too?
> **ef10** chooses EF10 (SFN7xxx, SFN8xxx) native datapath which is
> more efficient than libefx-based but has no VLAN insertion and TSO
> support yet.
> **ef10_simple** chooses EF10 (SFN7xxx, SFN8xxx) native datapath which
> is even more faster then **ef10** but does not support multi-segment
> - mbufs.
> + mbufs, disallows multiple mempools and neglects mbuf reference counters.
>
> - ``perf_profile`` [auto|throughput|low-latency] (default **throughput**)
>
<...>
> --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ef10_tx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ef10_tx.c
> @@ -401,14 +401,25 @@ struct sfc_ef10_txq {
> pending += sfc_ef10_tx_process_events(txq);
>
> if (pending != completed) {
> + struct rte_mbuf *bulk[SFC_TX_REAP_BULK_SIZE];
> + unsigned int nb = 0;
> +
> do {
> struct sfc_ef10_tx_sw_desc *txd;
>
> txd = &txq->sw_ring[completed & ptr_mask];
>
> - rte_pktmbuf_free_seg(txd->mbuf);
> + if (nb == RTE_DIM(bulk)) {
> + rte_mempool_put_bulk(bulk[0]->pool,
> + (void *)bulk, nb);
same warning here, again false positive I think:
error #3656: variable "bulk" may be used before its value is set
The patch to ignore the warning will take care of this one too.
> + nb = 0;
> + }
> +
> + bulk[nb++] = txd->mbuf;
> } while (++completed != pending);
>
> + rte_mempool_put_bulk(bulk[0]->pool, (void *)bulk, nb);
> +
> txq->completed = completed;
> }
<...>
