bogdanPricope replied on github web page:
example/generator/odp_generator.c
line 87
@@ -563,44 +572,68 @@ static int create_pktio(const char *dev, odp_pool_t pool,
return -1;
}
- if (num_rx_queues > capa.max_input_queues)
- num_rx_queues = capa.max_input_queues;
+ if (num_rx_queues) {
+ pktin_mode = ODP_PKTIO_OP_MT_UNSAFE;
+ if (num_rx_queues > capa.max_input_queues) {
+ num_rx_queues = capa.max_input_queues;
+ pktin_mode = ODP_PKTIO_OP_MT;
+ EXAMPLE_DBG("Warning: Force RX multithread safe mode "
+ "(slower)on %s\n", dev);
+ }
- odp_pktin_queue_param_init(&pktin_param);
- pktin_param.num_queues = num_rx_queues;
- pktin_param.queue_param.sched.sync = ODP_SCHED_SYNC_ATOMIC;
+ odp_pktin_queue_param_init(&pktin_param);
+ pktin_param.num_queues = num_rx_queues;
+ pktin_param.op_mode = pktin_mode;
+ if (sched)
+ pktin_param.queue_param.sched.sync =
+ ODP_SCHED_SYNC_ATOMIC;
Comment:
Yes, this can be part of another PR.
> bogdanPricope wrote
> * @return Number of events outputted (0 ... num)
>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>> 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_r158210664
updated_at 2017-12-21 07:55:32
