[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 7/8] net/virtio: add IN_ORDER Rx/Tx into selection

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 06/25/2018 05:17 PM, Marvin Liu wrote:
> After IN_ORDER Rx/Tx paths added, need to update Rx/Tx path selection
> logic.
> 
> Rx path select logic: If IN_ORDER is disabled will select normal Rx
> path. If IN_ORDER is enabled, Rx offload and merge-able are disabled
> will select simple Rx path. Otherwise will select IN_ORDER Rx path.
> 
> Tx path select logic: If IN_ORDER is disabled will select normal Tx
> path. If IN_ORDER is enabled and merge-able is disabled will select
> simple Tx path. Otherwise will select IN_ORDER Tx path.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marvin Liu <yong.liu at intel.com>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
> index df50a571a..f48a84a11 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
> @@ -1320,6 +1320,11 @@ set_rxtx_funcs(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
>   		PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "virtio: using simple Rx path on port %u",
>   			eth_dev->data->port_id);
>   		eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = virtio_recv_pkts_vec;
> +	} else if (hw->use_inorder_rx) {
> +		PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO,
> +			"virtio: using inorder mergeable buffer Rx path on port %u",
> +			eth_dev->data->port_id);
> +		eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = &virtio_recv_mergeable_pkts_inorder;
>   	} else if (vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF)) {
>   		PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO,
>   			"virtio: using mergeable buffer Rx path on port %u",
> @@ -1335,6 +1340,10 @@ set_rxtx_funcs(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
>   		PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "virtio: using simple Tx path on port %u",
>   			eth_dev->data->port_id);
>   		eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = virtio_xmit_pkts_simple;
> +	} else if (hw->use_inorder_tx) {
> +		PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "virtio: using inorder Tx path on port %u",
> +			eth_dev->data->port_id);
> +		eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = virtio_xmit_pkts_inorder;
>   	} else {
>   		PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "virtio: using standard Tx path on port %u",
>   			eth_dev->data->port_id);
> @@ -1871,23 +1880,25 @@ virtio_dev_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>   
>   	rte_spinlock_init(&hw->state_lock);
>   
> -	hw->use_simple_rx = 1;
> -	hw->use_simple_tx = 1;
> -
>   #if defined RTE_ARCH_ARM64 || defined RTE_ARCH_ARM
>   	if (!rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled(RTE_CPUFLAG_NEON)) {
>   		hw->use_simple_rx = 0;
>   		hw->use_simple_tx = 0;
>   	}
>   #endif
> -	if (vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF)) {
> -		hw->use_simple_rx = 0;
> -		hw->use_simple_tx = 0;
> -	}
> +	if (vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER)) {
> +		if (vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF)) {
> +			hw->use_inorder_rx = 1;
> +			hw->use_inorder_tx = 1;
> +		} else {
> +			hw->use_simple_rx = 1;
> +			hw->use_simple_tx = 1;
> +		}
>   
> -	if (rx_offloads & (DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
> -			   DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM))
> -		hw->use_simple_rx = 0;
> +		if (rx_offloads & (DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
> +				   DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM))
> +			hw->use_inorder_rx = 1;
Isn't there a problem here if mrg_rxbuf has been negotiated?

> +	}
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }
>