Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 5/5] lib/distributor: use wait event scheme
From: David Hunt <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-01 12:45:11
On 29/10/2021 2:58 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:50 PM Feifei Wang [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Instead of polling for bufptr64 to be updated, use wait event for this case. Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <redacted> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <redacted>With the change in the subject as distributor: ... Probably can be fixed in merge time. Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <redacted>
Acked-by David Hunt [off-list ref]
quoted
--- lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)diff --git a/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c b/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c index f4725b1d0b..d52b24a453 100644 --- a/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c +++ b/lib/distributor/rte_distributor_single.c@@ -33,9 +33,8 @@ rte_distributor_request_pkt_single(struct rte_distributor_single *d, union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id]; int64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS) | RTE_DISTRIB_GET_BUF; - while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) - & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK)) - rte_pause(); + rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK, + !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); /* Sync with distributor on GET_BUF flag. */ __atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);@@ -74,9 +73,8 @@ rte_distributor_return_pkt_single(struct rte_distributor_single *d, union rte_distributor_buffer_single *buf = &d->bufs[worker_id]; uint64_t req = (((int64_t)(uintptr_t)oldpkt) << RTE_DISTRIB_FLAG_BITS) | RTE_DISTRIB_RETURN_BUF; - while (unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&buf->bufptr64, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) - & RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK)) - rte_pause(); + rte_wait_event(&buf->bufptr64, RTE_DISTRIB_FLAGS_MASK, + !=, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); /* Sync with distributor on RETURN_BUF flag. */ __atomic_store_n(&(buf->bufptr64), req, __ATOMIC_RELEASE); --2.25.1