On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM Rao, Nikhil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 3:57 PM > > To: Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]> > > Cc: Rao, Nikhil <[email protected]>; Nipun Gupta <[email protected]>; > > Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>; dpdk-dev <[email protected]>; Pavan Nikhilesh > > <[email protected]>; Sunil Kumar Kori <[email protected]>; > > Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>; Kovacevic, Marko > > <[email protected]>; Ori Kam <[email protected]>; Nicolau, Radu > > <[email protected]>; Kantecki, Tomasz <[email protected]>; > > Van Haaren, Harry <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eventdev: flag to identify same destined > > packets enqueue > > > </snip> > > > > > > But I am not able to recollect, Why Nikhil would like to use the > > > > > separate functions. Nikhil could you remind us why > > > > > rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue() can not be used for sending the > > > > > packet for SW Tx adapter. > > > > > > > > > [Nikhil] The goal was to keep the workers using the loop below. > > > > > > > > while (1) { > > > > rte_event_dequeue_burst(...); > > > > (event processing) > > > > rte_event_enqueue_burst(...); } > > > > We do have specialized functions for specific enqueue use case like > > rte_event_enqueue_new_burst() or > > rte_event_enqueue_forward_burst() to avoid any performance impact. > > > > Since PMD agruments are same for rte_event_enqueue_burst() and > > rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue() > > assigning simple function pointer assignment to > > rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue as dev->txa_enqueue = > > dev->enqueue_burst > > would have worked to have same Tx function across all platfroms without > > peformance overhead. > > Offcouse I understand, Slow path direct event enqueue assigment needs > > different treatment. > > > > > > ie in fastpath. > > > > while (1) { > > rte_event_dequeue_burst(...); > > if (tx_stage) > > rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue()... > > } > > > > What do you say? > > > > Sorry missed this question previously - Unless I have misunderstood your > email, the event processing stage would have if conditions for each of the > stages (or minimally the tx stage), no disagreement on that, the only > difference would be set up of the event[] arrays that are sent to > rte_event_enqueue_burst() and rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_enqueue() resulting in > an additional call to rte_event_enqueue_burst(). If that’s true, since the > abstraction has a cost to it, should we be adding it ?
It there is a cost then we should not be adding it. I think, the following scheme can avoid the cost by adding the following in a _slow path_ as the prototype of the driver API is the same. dev->txa_enqueue = dev->enqueue_burst; > > Nikhil
