[v8,5/5] lib/distributor: use wait event scheme
Checks
Commit Message
Instead of polling for bufptr64 to be updated, use
wait event for this case.
Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
---
lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c | 10 ++++------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Comments
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:50 PM Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Instead of polling for bufptr64 to be updated, use
> wait event for this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
With the change in the subject as distributor: ...
Probably can be fixed in merge time.
Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> ---
> lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c b/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c
> index f4725b1d0b..d52b24a453 100644
> --- a/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c
> +++ b/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c
> @@ -33,9 +33,8 @@ rte_distributor_request_pkt_single(struct rte_distributor_single *d,
> union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id];
> int64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS)
> | RTE_DISTRIB_GET_BUF;
> - while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
> - & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK))
> - rte_pause();
> + rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK,
> + !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
>
> /* Sync with distributor on GET_BUF flag. */
> __atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> @@ -74,9 +73,8 @@ rte_distributor_return_pkt_single(struct rte_distributor_single *d,
> union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id];
> uint64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS)
> | RTE_DISTRIB_RETURN_BUF;
> - while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
> - & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK))
> - rte_pause();
> + rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK,
> + !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
>
> /* Sync with distributor on RETURN_BUF flag. */
> __atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> --
> 2.25.1
>
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 3:58 PM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:50 PM Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Instead of polling for bufptr64 to be updated, use
> > wait event for this case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
>
>
> With the change in the subject as distributor: ...
Yes.
On 29/10/2021 2:58 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:50 PM Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com> wrote:
>> Instead of polling for bufptr64 to be updated, use
>> wait event for this case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
>
> With the change in the subject as distributor: ...
> Probably can be fixed in merge time.
>
> Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
Acked-by David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>
>> ---
>> lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c | 10 ++++------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c b/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c
>> index f4725b1d0b..d52b24a453 100644
>> --- a/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c
>> +++ b/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c
>> @@ -33,9 +33,8 @@ rte_distributor_request_pkt_single(struct rte_distributor_single *d,
>> union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id];
>> int64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS)
>> | RTE_DISTRIB_GET_BUF;
>> - while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
>> - & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK))
>> - rte_pause();
>> + rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK,
>> + !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
>>
>> /* Sync with distributor on GET_BUF flag. */
>> __atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
>> @@ -74,9 +73,8 @@ rte_distributor_return_pkt_single(struct rte_distributor_single *d,
>> union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id];
>> uint64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS)
>> | RTE_DISTRIB_RETURN_BUF;
>> - while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
>> - & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK))
>> - rte_pause();
>> + rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK,
>> + !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
>>
>> /* Sync with distributor on RETURN_BUF flag. */
>> __atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
@@ -33,9 +33,8 @@ rte_distributor_request_pkt_single(struct rte_distributor_single *d,
union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id];
int64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS)
| RTE_DISTRIB_GET_BUF;
- while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
- & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK))
- rte_pause();
+ rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK,
+ !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
/* Sync with distributor on GET_BUF flag. */
__atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
@@ -74,9 +73,8 @@ rte_distributor_return_pkt_single(struct rte_distributor_single *d,
union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id];
uint64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS)
| RTE_DISTRIB_RETURN_BUF;
- while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
- & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK))
- rte_pause();
+ rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK,
+ !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
/* Sync with distributor on RETURN_BUF flag. */
__atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);