From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/virtio: cache Rx/Tx offload ability
	check
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:24:10 +0800
Message-ID: <20161109052410.GK12283@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1478251718-7464-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1478269793-11082-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <06d3ff0d-d145-597b-09af-c86c93d5cbfd@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8844D3238
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  9 Nov 2016 06:23:22 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <06d3ff0d-d145-597b-09af-c86c93d5cbfd@6wind.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:43:14AM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Hi Yuanhan,
> 
> On 11/04/2016 03:29 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > It's not a good idea to do the check of whether Rx/Tx offload is
> > enabled at the data path. Instead, we could do the check at init
> > stage and store the result, so that we could avoid the check again
> > and again at the critical datapath.
> > 
> > Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > v2: - rebase on top of the bug fix patches
> >     - define rx/tx_offload as uint8_t instead of int
> > 
> >  drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.h    |  2 ++
> >  drivers/net/virtio/virtio_rxtx.c   | 31 +++++--------------------------
> >  3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
> > index 1505f67..2adae58 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c
> > @@ -1188,6 +1188,22 @@ rx_func_get(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> >  		eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = &virtio_recv_pkts;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline int
> > +rx_offload_enabled(struct virtio_hw *hw)
> > +{
> > +	return vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM) ||
> > +		vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO4) ||
> > +		vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO6);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline int
> > +tx_offload_enabled(struct virtio_hw *hw)
> > +{
> > +	return vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_CSUM) ||
> > +		vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO4) ||
> > +		vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_HOST_TSO6);
> > +}
> 
> Do we need these functions to be inlined?

Nope, it was done simply by copy & paste. I could remove them in future
version.

> It looks better to do like this, but out of curiosity, do you see a
> performance improvement?

I didn't bother to have a try: I'd assume it brings no (at least
no obvious) improvements.

	--yliu