[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] net/i40e: improved FDIR programming times

[Xing, Beilei]

Hi Michael,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lilja
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:12 PM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Michael Lilja <ml at napatech.com>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] net/i40e: improved FDIR programming times
> 
> Previously, the FDIR programming time is +11ms on i40e.
> This patch will result in an average programming time of 22usec with a max of
> 60usec .
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Lilja <ml at napatech.com>
> 
> ---
> v4:
> * Code style fix
> ---
> ---
>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c index
> 28cc554f5..32f6aeafb 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c
> @@ -1296,27 +1296,27 @@ i40e_fdir_filter_programming(struct i40e_pf *pf,
>  	rte_wmb();
>  	I40E_PCI_REG_WRITE(txq->qtx_tail, txq->tx_tail);
> 
> -	for (i = 0; i < I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT; i++) {
> -		rte_delay_us(I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US);
> +	for (i = 0; i < (I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT *
> I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US);
> +i++) {
>  		if ((txdp->cmd_type_offset_bsz &
> 
> 	rte_cpu_to_le_64(I40E_TXD_QW1_DTYPE_MASK)) ==
> 
> 	rte_cpu_to_le_64(I40E_TX_DESC_DTYPE_DESC_DONE))
>  			break;
> +		rte_delay_us(1);
>  	}
> -	if (i >= I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT) {
> +	if (i >= (I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT * I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US))
> {
>  		PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to program FDIR filter:"
>  			    " time out to get DD on tx queue.");
>  		return -ETIMEDOUT;
>  	}
>  	/* totally delay 10 ms to check programming status*/
> -	rte_delay_us((I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT - i) *
> I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US);
> -	if (i40e_check_fdir_programming_status(rxq) < 0) {
> -		PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to program FDIR filter:"
> -			    " programming status reported.");
> -		return -ENOSYS;
> +	for (i = 0; i < (I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT *
> I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US); i++) {

To keep the original intention, "i" shouldn't be set to 0 again but keep above value.
Please refer to " rte_delay_us((I40E_FDIR_WAIT_COUNT - i) *> I40E_FDIR_WAIT_INTERVAL_US)".
Sorry for missing it before.

Overall it's OK for me, thanks.

Beilei