On 21 Dec 2018, at 17:15, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote:
Hi Eelco,
<snip>
+/** trTCM parameters per metered traffic flow. The CIR, EIT, CBS and
EBS
Small typo here: EIT to be replaced by EIR.
+parameters only count bytes of IP packets and do not include link
specific
+headers. The CBS and EBS need to be greater than zero if CIR and EIR
are
+none-zero respectively.*/
+struct rte_meter_trtcm_rfc4115_params {
+ uint64_t cir; /**< Committed Information Rate (CIR). Measured in
bytes per second. */
+ uint64_t eir; /**< Excess Information Rate (EIR). Measured in bytes
per second. */
+ uint64_t cbs; /**< Committed Burst Size (CBS). Measured in bytes.
*/
+ uint64_t ebs; /**< Excess Burst Size (EBS). Measured in bytes. */
+};
+
<snip>
+static inline enum rte_meter_color __rte_experimental
+rte_meter_trtcm_rfc4115_color_blind_check(
+ struct rte_meter_trtcm_rfc4115 *m,
+ struct rte_meter_trtcm_rfc4115_profile *p,
+ uint64_t time,
+ uint32_t pkt_len)
+{
+ uint64_t time_diff_tc, time_diff_te, n_periods_tc, n_periods_te,
tc,
te;
+
+ /* Bucket update */
+ time_diff_tc = time - m->time_tc;
+ time_diff_te = time - m->time_te;
+ n_periods_tc = time_diff_tc / p->cir_period;
+ n_periods_te = time_diff_te / p->eir_period;
+ m->time_tc += n_periods_tc * p->cir_period;
+ m->time_te += n_periods_te * p->eir_period;
+
+ tc = m->tc + n_periods_tc * p->cir_bytes_per_period;
+ if (tc > p->cbs)
+ tc = p->cbs;
+
+ te = m->te + n_periods_te * p->eir_bytes_per_period;
+ if (te > p->ebs)
+ te = p->ebs;
+
+ /* Color logic */
+ if (tc >= pkt_len) {
+ m->tc = tc - pkt_len;
+ m->te = te;
+ return e_RTE_METER_GREEN;
+ } else if (te >= pkt_len) {
+ m->tc = tc;
+ m->te = te - pkt_len;
+ return e_RTE_METER_YELLOW;
+ }
+
+ /* If we end up here the color is RED */
+ m->tc = tc;
+ m->te = te;
+ return e_RTE_METER_RED;
+}
+
Since the branch (tc >= pkt_len) == TRUE always returns, I suggest we
remove the following "else", as it is redundant:
/* Color logic */
if (tc >= pkt_len) {
m->tc = tc - pkt_len;
m->te = te;
return e_RTE_METER_GREEN;
}
if (te >= pkt_len) {
m->tc = tc;
m->te = te - pkt_len;
return e_RTE_METER_YELLOW;
}
/* If we end up here the color is RED */
m->tc = tc;
m->te = te;
return e_RTE_METER_RED;
+static inline enum rte_meter_color __rte_experimental
+rte_meter_trtcm_rfc4115_color_aware_check(
+ struct rte_meter_trtcm_rfc4115 *m,
+ struct rte_meter_trtcm_rfc4115_profile *p,
+ uint64_t time,
+ uint32_t pkt_len,
+ enum rte_meter_color pkt_color)
+{
+ uint64_t time_diff_tc, time_diff_te, n_periods_tc, n_periods_te,
tc,
te;
+
+ /* Bucket update */
+ time_diff_tc = time - m->time_tc;
+ time_diff_te = time - m->time_te;
+ n_periods_tc = time_diff_tc / p->cir_period;
+ n_periods_te = time_diff_te / p->eir_period;
+ m->time_tc += n_periods_tc * p->cir_period;
+ m->time_te += n_periods_te * p->eir_period;
+
+ tc = m->tc + n_periods_tc * p->cir_bytes_per_period;
+ if (tc > p->cbs)
+ tc = p->cbs;
+
+ te = m->te + n_periods_te * p->eir_bytes_per_period;
+ if (te > p->ebs)
+ te = p->ebs;
+
+ /* Color logic */
+ if (pkt_color == e_RTE_METER_GREEN) {
+ if (tc >= pkt_len) {
+ m->tc = tc - pkt_len;
+ m->te = te;
+ return e_RTE_METER_GREEN;
+ } else if (te >= pkt_len) {
+ m->tc = tc;
+ m->te = te - pkt_len;
+ return e_RTE_METER_YELLOW;
+ }
+ } else if (pkt_color == e_RTE_METER_YELLOW && te >= pkt_len) {
+ m->tc = tc;
+ m->te = te - pkt_len;
+ return e_RTE_METER_YELLOW;
+ }
+
+ /* If we end up here the color is RED */
+ m->tc = tc;
+ m->te = te;
+ return e_RTE_METER_RED;
+}
+
+
I suggest we follow the logic from the diagram in the RFC rather than
the logic in the text preceding the diagram. Although the two
descriptions are equivalent (after a bit of thinking), the diagram
seems more optimal to me:
/* Color logic */
if ((pkt_color == e_RTE_METER_GREEN) && (tc >= pkt_len)) {
m->tc = tc - pkt_len;
m->te = te;
return e_RTE_METER_GREEN;
}
if ((pkt_color != e_RTE_METER_RED) && (te >= pkt_len)) {
m->tc = tc;
m->te = te - pkt_len;
return e_RTE_METER_YELLOW;
}
/* If we end up here the color is RED */
m->tc = tc;
m->te = te;
return e_RTE_METER_RED;
<snip>
Thanks,
Cristian
Asking all comments, sent out a V4.
//Eelco
