On 09/12/2017 09:28 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 9/8/2017 3:15 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@oktetlabs.ru>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
---
doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst | 4 +++-
drivers/net/sfc/sfc_dp_tx.h | 2 ++
drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ef10_tx.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ethdev.c | 6 ++++++
drivers/net/sfc/sfc_tx.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
5 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst b/doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst
index 973a4a0..028b980 100644
--- a/doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/nics/sfc_efx.rst
@@ -245,12 +245,14 @@ boolean parameters value.
features available and required by the datapath implementation.
**efx** chooses libefx-based datapath which supports VLAN insertion
(full-feature firmware variant only), TSO and multi-segment mbufs.
+ Mbuf segments may come from different mempools, and mbuf reference
+ counters are treated responsibly.
This is also the case for ef10 native, right? Does it make sense to
document it in below too?
Thanks, will add.
**ef10** chooses EF10 (SFN7xxx, SFN8xxx) native datapath which is
more efficient than libefx-based but has no VLAN insertion and TSO
support yet.
**ef10_simple** chooses EF10 (SFN7xxx, SFN8xxx) native datapath which
is even more faster then **ef10** but does not support multi-segment
- mbufs.
+ mbufs, disallows multiple mempools and neglects mbuf reference counters.
- ``perf_profile`` [auto|throughput|low-latency] (default **throughput**)
<...>
--- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ef10_tx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_ef10_tx.c
@@ -401,14 +401,25 @@ struct sfc_ef10_txq {
pending += sfc_ef10_tx_process_events(txq);
if (pending != completed) {
+ struct rte_mbuf *bulk[SFC_TX_REAP_BULK_SIZE];
+ unsigned int nb = 0;
+
do {
struct sfc_ef10_tx_sw_desc *txd;
txd = &txq->sw_ring[completed & ptr_mask];
- rte_pktmbuf_free_seg(txd->mbuf);
+ if (nb == RTE_DIM(bulk)) {
+ rte_mempool_put_bulk(bulk[0]->pool,
+ (void *)bulk, nb);
same warning here, again false positive I think:
error #3656: variable "bulk" may be used before its value is set
I think this one is false positive as well.
The patch to ignore the warning will take care of this one too.
+ nb = 0;
+ }
+
+ bulk[nb++] = txd->mbuf;
} while (++completed != pending);
+ rte_mempool_put_bulk(bulk[0]->pool, (void *)bulk, nb);
+
txq->completed = completed;
}
<...>
