[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/virtio: cache Rx/Tx offload ability check
Yuanhan Liu
yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com
Wed Nov 9 06:24:10 CET 2016
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Yuanhan,
>
> On 11/04/2016 03:29 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > It's not a good idea to do the check of whether Rx/Tx offload is
> > enabled at the data path. Instead, we could do the check at init
> > stage and store the result, so that we could avoid the check again
> > and again at the critical datapath.
> >
> > Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > v2: - rebase on top of the bug fix patches
> > - define rx/tx_offload as uint8_t instead of int
> >
> > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.h | 2 ++
> > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c | 31 +++++--------------------------
> > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
> > index 1505f67..2adae58 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
> > @@ -1188,6 +1188,22 @@ rx_func_get(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> > eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = &virtio_recv_pkts;
> > }
> >
> > +static inline int
> > +rx_offload_enabled(struct virtio_hw *hw)
> > +{
> > + return vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM) ||
> > + vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO4) ||
> > + vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO6);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline int
> > +tx_offload_enabled(struct virtio_hw *hw)
> > +{
> > + return vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_CSUM) ||
> > + vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4) ||
> > + vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6);
> > +}
>
> Do we need these functions to be inlined?
Nope, it was done simply by copy & paste. I could remove them in future
version.
> It looks better to do like this, but out of curiosity, do you see a
> performance improvement?
I didn't bother to have a try: I'd assume it brings no (at least
no obvious) improvements.
--yliu
More information about the dev
mailing list