Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) replied on github web page:
example/generator/odp_generator.c
line 300
@@ -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,
Comment:
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_r158191905
updated_at 2017-12-21 03:50:22
