Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) replied on github web page: example/generator/odp_generator.c line 305 @@ -838,39 +892,55 @@ static int gen_recv_thread(void *arg) if (thr_args->stop) break; - /* Use schedule to get buf from any input queue */ - ev_cnt = odp_schedule_multi(NULL, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT, - events, burst_size); - if (ev_cnt == 0) - continue; - for (i = 0, pkt_cnt = 0; i < ev_cnt; i++) { - pkt = odp_packet_from_event(events[i]); - itf = &itfs[odp_pktio_index(odp_packet_input(pkt))]; - - if (odp_packet_has_ipv4(pkt)) { - if (itf->config.pktin.bit.ipv4_chksum) { - if (odp_packet_has_l3_error(pkt)) - printf("HW detected L3 error\n"); - } - } + pkt_cnt = odp_pktin_recv_tmo(pktin, pkts, burst_size, + ODP_PKTIN_NO_WAIT); - if (odp_packet_has_udp(pkt)) { - if (itf->config.pktin.bit.udp_chksum) { - if (odp_packet_has_l4_error(pkt)) - printf("HW detected L4 error\n"); - } - } + if (pkt_cnt > 0) { + process_pkts(thr, thr_args, pkts, pkt_cnt); - /* Drop packets with errors */ - if (odp_unlikely(odp_packet_has_error(pkt))) { - odp_packet_free(pkt); - continue; - } - pkts[pkt_cnt++] = pkt; + odp_packet_free_multi(pkts, pkt_cnt); + } else if (pkt_cnt == 0) { + continue; + } else { + break; } + } + + return 0; +} - if (pkt_cnt) { - print_pkts(thr, thr_args, pkts, pkt_cnt); +/** + * Scheduler receive function + * + * @param arg thread arguments of type 'thread_args_t *' + */ +static int gen_recv_sched_thread(void *arg) +{ + int thr; + thread_args_t *thr_args; + odp_packet_t pkts[MAX_RX_BURST]; + odp_event_t events[MAX_RX_BURST]; + int pkt_cnt, burst_size, i; + + thr = odp_thread_id(); + thr_args = (thread_args_t *)arg; + burst_size = args->rx_burst_size; + + printf(" [%02i] created mode: RECEIVE SCHEDULER\n", thr); + odp_barrier_wait(&barrier); + + for (;;) { + if (thr_args->stop) + break; + + pkt_cnt = odp_schedule_multi(NULL, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT, + events, burst_size); + + if (pkt_cnt > 0) { + for (i = 0; i < pkt_cnt; i++) + pkts[i] = odp_packet_from_event(events[i]);
Comment: The new `odp_event_filter_packet()` API would be useful here. > Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: > Why `ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT` vs. `ODP_SCHED_WAIT` here? You're just spinning if no > packets are available so why not let the scheduler do the waiting? >> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >> Agree with @muvarov, this could use some comments to explain why these calls >> are being used. You'd expect a dedicated RX thread to simply wait for packet >> input. >>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >>> Checksum errors will result in `odp_packet_has_error()` being set as well, >>> so these checks can be done only if the summary packet error predicate is >>> set, avoiding unnecessary checks for known good packets. >>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >>>> Might be good to have options for controlling the queue sync type here as >>>> `ODP_SCHED_SYNC_PARALLEL` should result in highest throughput, and >>>> `ODP_SCHED_SYNC_ORDERED` would be useful in testing performance of >>>> scheduler implementations (in theory should be better than >>>> `ODP_SCHED_SYNC_ATOMIC`). >>>> >>>> Something to explore in another PR >>>>> muvarov wrote >>>>> ok >>>>>> muvarov wrote >>>>>> and why odp_pktin_recv_tmo() and not odp_pktin_recv() ? >>>>>>> muvarov wrote >>>>>>> why not ODP_PKTIN_WAIT? >>>>>>>> muvarov wrote >>>>>>>> not all events are packets. >>>>>>>>> muvarov wrote >>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>> * @return Next highest priority event >>>>>>>>> * @retval ODP_EVENT_INVALID on timeout and no events available >>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>>> muvarov wrote >>>>>>>>>> just separate rx function for scheduler and on thread start you just >>>>>>>>>> select scheduler or direct. >>>>>>>>>>> bogdanPricope wrote >>>>>>>>>>> This will complicate this already over-complicated code: we may >>>>>>>>>>> need to decide between ultimate performance and feature richness. >>>>>>>>>>>> bogdanPricope wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> No - we need to print csum errors first. >>>>>>>>>>>> This part was significantly changed in api-next (csum checks use >>>>>>>>>>>> different/ new API) and it makes no sense to optimize it for the >>>>>>>>>>>> old (master) code. After integration in api-next, this part will >>>>>>>>>>>> be reworked to use less parser flags (reduce parsing level). >>>>>>>>>>>> For example, removing L4 parsing and locating interface is >>>>>>>>>>>> bringing an extra 1 mpps. >>>>>>>>>>>>> bogdanPricope wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>> '-r' may work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having an option to use direct mode seems reasonable, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't we retain schedule mode (perhaps as a command line >>>>>>>>>>>>>> switch)? This would provide an easy means of testing scheduler >>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency as it is tuned. At least in some environments we'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like schedule mode to show better performance than direct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muvarov wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has to be the first check. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muvarov wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -r ? https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/343#discussion_r158192115 updated_at 2017-12-21 03:50:23