Sure Harry, I am ok with your suggestion.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Van Haaren, Harry > Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 6:20 PM > To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.vargh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] event/sw: code refractor for sw_refill_pp_buf > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Varghese, Vipin > > Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:35 PM > > To: dev@dpdk.org; Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com> > > Cc: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.vargh...@intel.com> > > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] event/sw: code refractor for sw_refill_pp_buf > > > > Code changes how shadow buffer are filled up in each calls. > > Refilling the shadow buffer helped in improving 0.2 Mpps. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Varghese <vipin.vargh...@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c > > b/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c > > index 70d1970..a95a22a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c > > +++ b/drivers/event/sw/sw_evdev_scheduler.c > > @@ -451,6 +451,10 @@ __pull_port_lb(struct sw_evdev *sw, uint32_t > > port_id, int > > allow_reorder) > > port->pp_buf_count--; > > } /* while (avail_qes) */ > > > > + /* replensih buffers before next iteration */ > > + if (port->pp_buf_count == 0) > > + sw_refill_pp_buf(sw, port); > > + > > return pkts_iter; > > } > > > I see the goal here - to ensure that the port buffer has items when we next > enter > this function, possibly reducing a stall waiting for the ring access. > > In theory this is a good idea - in practice, I see a small performance > degradation. > Hence, I suggest we drop this patch from the patchset, and merge 1/2 alone.
