[dpdk-dev,v4] net/i40e: improved FDIR programming times
Checks
Commit Message
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@napatech.com>
---
v4:
* Code style fix
---
---
drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Comments
Hi Michael,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Michael Lilja
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:12 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Michael Lilja <ml@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@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
@@ -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++) {
+ if (i40e_check_fdir_programming_status(rxq) >= 0)
+ return 0;
+ rte_delay_us(1);
}
-
- return 0;
+ PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Failed to program FDIR filter:"
+ " programming status reported.");
+ return -ENOSYS;
}
/*