[v9,2/2] net/af_xdp: Refactor af_xdp_tx_zc
Checks
Commit Message
Both legs of the loop share the same logic: the common parts are about
reserving and filling both address and length into the description.
This is moved into reserve_and_fill().
Bugzilla ID: 1440
Suggested-by: Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com>
---
drivers/net/af_xdp/rte_eth_af_xdp.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
Comments
On 07/02/2025 10:45, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
> Both legs of the loop share the same logic: the common parts are about
> reserving and filling both address and length into the description.
>
> This is moved into reserve_and_fill().
>
> Bugzilla ID: 1440
> Suggested-by: Maryam Tahhan<mtahhan@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili<ariel.otilibili@6wind.com>
Acked-by: Maryam Tahhan<mtahhan@redhat.com>
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:13 PM Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2025 10:45, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
>
> Both legs of the loop share the same logic: the common parts are about
> reserving and filling both address and length into the description.
>
> This is moved into reserve_and_fill().
>
> Bugzilla ID: 1440
> Suggested-by: Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> <mtahhan@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com> <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com>
>
> Acked-by: Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> <mtahhan@redhat.com>
>
>
Thanks for your insight, Maryam; I've learnt a lot along the way.
Hello Maryam, hello Stephen;
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:33 PM Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:13 PM Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07/02/2025 10:45, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
>>
>> Both legs of the loop share the same logic: the common parts are about
>> reserving and filling both address and length into the description.
>>
>> This is moved into reserve_and_fill().
>>
>> Bugzilla ID: 1440
>> Suggested-by: Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> <mtahhan@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com> <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> <mtahhan@redhat.com>
>>
>>
> Thanks for your insight, Maryam; I've learnt a lot along the way.
>
Are you expecting anything from me? From what I understood, the series was
acked. Still, patchwork labels it as* Change Requested.*
http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20250207104552.1663519-3-ariel.otilibili@6wind.com/
Let me know,
Ariel
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:17:51 +0100
Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com> wrote:
> Hello Maryam, hello Stephen;
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:33 PM Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:13 PM Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 07/02/2025 10:45, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
> >>
> >> Both legs of the loop share the same logic: the common parts are about
> >> reserving and filling both address and length into the description.
> >>
> >> This is moved into reserve_and_fill().
> >>
> >> Bugzilla ID: 1440
> >> Suggested-by: Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> <mtahhan@redhat.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com> <ariel.otilibili@6wind.com>
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com> <mtahhan@redhat.com>
> >>
> >>
> > Thanks for your insight, Maryam; I've learnt a lot along the way.
> >
>
> Are you expecting anything from me? From what I understood, the series was
> acked. Still, patchwork labels it as* Change Requested.*
>
> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20250207104552.1663519-3-ariel.otilibili@6wind.com/
>
> Let me know,
> Ariel
I was wanting for discussion to end, there seemed to be open issues around testing
and the new common code.
<snip>
>> Are you expecting anything from me? From what I understood, the series was
>> acked. Still, patchwork labels it as* Change Requested.*
>>
>> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20250207104552.1663519-3-ariel.otilibili@6wind.com/
>>
>> Let me know,
>> Ariel
> I was wanting for discussion to end, there seemed to be open issues around testing
> and the new common code.
Yeah we are all good now discussion-wise. I've acked this patch.
@@ -536,21 +536,49 @@ kick_tx(struct pkt_tx_queue *txq, struct xsk_ring_cons *cq)
}
}
+static inline struct xdp_desc *
+reserve_and_fill(struct pkt_tx_queue *txq, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf,
+ struct xsk_umem_info *umem, void **pkt_ptr)
+{
+ struct xdp_desc *desc = NULL;
+ uint64_t addr, offset;
+ uint32_t idx_tx;
+
+ if (!xsk_ring_prod__reserve(&txq->tx, 1, &idx_tx))
+ goto out;
+
+ desc = xsk_ring_prod__tx_desc(&txq->tx, idx_tx);
+ desc->len = mbuf->pkt_len;
+
+ addr = (uint64_t)mbuf - (uint64_t)umem->buffer
+ - umem->mb_pool->header_size;
+ offset = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(mbuf, uint64_t) - (uint64_t)mbuf
+ + umem->mb_pool->header_size;
+
+ if (pkt_ptr)
+ *pkt_ptr = xsk_umem__get_data(umem->buffer, addr + offset);
+
+ offset = offset << XSK_UNALIGNED_BUF_OFFSET_SHIFT;
+ desc->addr = addr | offset;
+
+out:
+ return desc;
+}
+
#if defined(XDP_UMEM_UNALIGNED_CHUNK_FLAG)
static uint16_t
af_xdp_tx_zc(void *queue, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_pkts)
{
struct pkt_tx_queue *txq = queue;
struct xsk_umem_info *umem = txq->umem;
- struct rte_mbuf *mbuf;
+ struct rte_mbuf *mbuf, *local_mbuf = NULL;
unsigned long tx_bytes = 0;
int i;
- uint32_t idx_tx;
uint16_t count = 0;
struct xdp_desc *desc;
- uint64_t addr, offset;
struct xsk_ring_cons *cq = &txq->pair->cq;
uint32_t free_thresh = cq->size >> 1;
+ void *pkt;
if (xsk_cons_nb_avail(cq, free_thresh) >= free_thresh)
pull_umem_cq(umem, XSK_RING_CONS__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS, cq);
@@ -559,51 +587,30 @@ af_xdp_tx_zc(void *queue, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_pkts)
mbuf = bufs[i];
if (mbuf->pool == umem->mb_pool) {
- if (!xsk_ring_prod__reserve(&txq->tx, 1, &idx_tx)) {
+ if (!(desc = reserve_and_fill(txq, mbuf, umem, NULL))) {
kick_tx(txq, cq);
- if (!xsk_ring_prod__reserve(&txq->tx, 1,
- &idx_tx))
+ desc = reserve_and_fill(txq, mbuf, umem, NULL);
+ if (!desc)
goto out;
}
- desc = xsk_ring_prod__tx_desc(&txq->tx, idx_tx);
- desc->len = mbuf->pkt_len;
- addr = (uint64_t)mbuf - (uint64_t)umem->buffer -
- umem->mb_pool->header_size;
- offset = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(mbuf, uint64_t) -
- (uint64_t)mbuf +
- umem->mb_pool->header_size;
- offset = offset << XSK_UNALIGNED_BUF_OFFSET_SHIFT;
- desc->addr = addr | offset;
+
tx_bytes += desc->len;
count++;
} else {
- struct rte_mbuf *local_mbuf =
- rte_pktmbuf_alloc(umem->mb_pool);
- void *pkt;
-
- if (local_mbuf == NULL)
+ if (!(local_mbuf = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(umem->mb_pool)))
goto out;
- if (!xsk_ring_prod__reserve(&txq->tx, 1, &idx_tx)) {
+ desc = reserve_and_fill(txq, local_mbuf, umem, &pkt);
+ if (!desc) {
rte_pktmbuf_free(local_mbuf);
goto out;
}
- desc = xsk_ring_prod__tx_desc(&txq->tx, idx_tx);
desc->len = mbuf->pkt_len;
-
- addr = (uint64_t)local_mbuf - (uint64_t)umem->buffer -
- umem->mb_pool->header_size;
- offset = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(local_mbuf, uint64_t) -
- (uint64_t)local_mbuf +
- umem->mb_pool->header_size;
- pkt = xsk_umem__get_data(umem->buffer, addr + offset);
- offset = offset << XSK_UNALIGNED_BUF_OFFSET_SHIFT;
- desc->addr = addr | offset;
rte_memcpy(pkt, rte_pktmbuf_mtod(mbuf, void *),
- desc->len);
- tx_bytes += desc->len;
+ desc->len);
rte_pktmbuf_free(mbuf);
+ tx_bytes += desc->len;
count++;
}
}