[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2]:rte_timer:timer lag issue correction

Sanford, Robert rsanford at akamai.com
Tue Oct 4 23:39:46 CEST 2016


Yes, this change makes sense. I ran timer tests and they passed.

Acked-by: Robert Sanford <rsanford at akamai.com>

Thanks,
Robert



On 9/29/16, 10:27 AM, "Karmarkar Suyash" <skarmarkar at sonusnet.com> wrote:

Hello,

Can you please review the changes and suggest next steps? Thanks

Regards
Suyash Karmarkar

-----Original Message-----
From: Karmarkar Suyash 
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:54 PM
To: dev at dpdk.org; thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com; rsanford at akamai.com; reshma.pattan at intel.com
Cc: Karmarkar Suyash <skarmarkar at sonusnet.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2]:rte_timer:timer lag issue correction

For Periodic timers ,if the lag gets introduced, the current code 
added additional delay when the next peridoc timer was initialized 
by not taking into account the delay added, with this fix the code 
would start the next occurrence of timer keeping in account the 
lag added.Corrected the behavior.

Fixes: 9b15ba89 ("timer: use a skip list")

Karmarkar Suyash (1):
Signed-off-by: Karmarkar Suyash <skarmarkar at sonusnet.com>

 lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

 
---
 lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c
index 43da836..18782fa 100644
--- a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c
+++ b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c
@@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ void rte_timer_manage(void)
 			status.owner = (int16_t)lcore_id;
 			rte_wmb();
 			tim->status.u32 = status.u32;
-			__rte_timer_reset(tim, cur_time + tim->period,
+			__rte_timer_reset(tim, tim->expire + tim->period,
 				tim->period, lcore_id, tim->f, tim->arg, 1);
 			rte_spinlock_unlock(&priv_timer[lcore_id].list_lock);
 		}

-- 
2.9.3.windows.1





More information about the dev mailing list