Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) replied on github web page:
platform/linux-generic/odp_packet_io.c
line 50
@@ -638,8 +638,20 @@ static odp_buffer_hdr_t *pktin_dequeue(queue_t q_int)
if (pkts <= 0)
return NULL;
- if (pkts > 1)
- queue_fn->enq_multi(q_int, &hdr_tbl[1], pkts - 1);
+ if (pkts > 1) {
+ int num_enq;
+ int num = pkts - 1;
+
+ num_enq = queue_fn->enq_multi(q_int, &hdr_tbl[1], num);
+
+ if (odp_unlikely(num_enq < num)) {
+ if (odp_unlikely(num_enq < 0))
+ num_enq = 0;
+
+ buffer_free_multi(&hdr_tbl[num_enq + 1], num - num_enq);
Comment:
Worth an `ODP_DBG()` here? At minimum I'd think we'd want to capture some sort
of statistic for these drops.
Same comment for the rest of the similar drops in this commit.
> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
> If we relax this to cover atomic and parallel queues then this would simply
> be:
> ```
> int use_stash = !queue_is_ordered(qi);
> ```
>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>> Is it really necessary to restrict this optimization to atomic queues?
>> Ordered obviously cannot be stashed, but parallel queues make no ordering
>> guarantees so accelerating them like this would also seem reasonable. In
>> that case the `atomic` variable to this function would be better named
>> something like `use_stash` .
>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>> Might be nice to say which interface wasn't started here for debug purposes
>>> since many could be in play.
https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/504#discussion_r171715495
updated_at 2018-03-01 22:37:20
