> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amber, Kumar <kumar.am...@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday 26 August 2022 00:31
> To: ovs-dev@openvswitch.org
> Cc: echau...@redhat.com; i.maxim...@ovn.org; Ferriter, Cian
> <cian.ferri...@intel.com>; Stokes, Ian
> <ian.sto...@intel.com>; f...@sysclose.org; Van Haaren, Harry
> <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; Amber, Kumar
> <kumar.am...@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v5 7/9] dpif-mfex: Change mfex fn pointer prototype to
> include md_is_valid.
>
> The md_is_valid parameter is passed from DPIF to MFEX to allow mfex
> functions to detect the tunneling and decide the processing of Inner
> packets in static predictable branches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Amber <kumar.am...@intel.com>
> ---
> lib/dpif-netdev-avx512.c | 3 ++-
> lib/dpif-netdev-extract-avx512.c | 9 +++++----
> lib/dpif-netdev-extract-study.c | 6 ++++--
> lib/dpif-netdev-private-extract.c | 6 ++++--
> lib/dpif-netdev-private-extract.h | 13 ++++++++-----
> 5 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
Hey Amber,
I'm OK with the API changes in this patch if we need them, but after looking at
the later 2 patches in the series, I can see that you're using another check in
the heart of the MFEX AVX512 code (mfex_avx512_process()):
/* Dummy pmd dont always pass correct md_is_valid and hence
* need to check the tunnel data to ensure correct behaviour.
*/
bool tunnel = flow_tnl_dst_is_set(&md->tunnel);
If we need to use the flow_tnl_dst_is_set() check, then it makes me think we
don't need the md_is_valid bool at all. Can you check if we can get away with
just using the flow_tnl_dst_is_set() check instead? If so, we don't need this
patch at all as we could use the flow_tnl_dst_is_set() check for both the study
and AVX512 MFEX implementations.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Thanks,
Cian
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
