Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) replied on github web page:
platform/linux-generic/odp_schedule_basic.c
@@ -720,9 +727,32 @@ static inline int poll_pktin(uint32_t qi)
if (num_pktin == 0)
sched_cb_pktio_stop_finalize(pktio_index);
+
+ return num;
}
- return num;
+ if (atomic) {
Comment:
That makes sense.
> Petri Savolainen(psavol) wrote:
> Line is was not changed but moved. Anyway, added name in v2.
>> Petri Savolainen(psavol) wrote:
>> ODP_DBG() added in v2
>>> Petri Savolainen(psavol) wrote:
>>> I wanted to be conservative and not change synchronization of parallel
>>> queues yet. I'll do another patch on top, so that it's easy to undo
>>> parallel optimization later if necessary.
>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>> 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_r171839812
updated_at 2018-03-02 12:55:36
