From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/6] add Tx preparation
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:50:02 +0100
Message-ID: <2285429.Z7YL4y4ekv@xps13>
References: <1477486575-25148-1-git-send-email-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
 <8317180.L80Qf11uiu@xps13> <20161130074003.GD10340@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com
To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 Tomasz Kulasek <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23542BCD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:50:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a197so261743079wmd.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:50:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20161130074003.GD10340@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>

2016-11-30 08:40, Adrien Mazarguil:
[...]
> I understand tx_prep() automates this process, however I'm wondering why
> isn't the TX burst function doing that itself. Using nb_mtu_seg_max as an
> example, tx_prep() has an extra check in case of TSO that the TX burst
> function does not perform. This ends up being much more expensive to
> applications due to the additional loop doing redundant testing on each
> mbuf.
> 
> If, say as a performance improvement, we decided to leave the validation
> part to the TX burst function; what remains in tx_prep() is basically heavy
> "preparation" requiring mbuf changes (i.e. erasing checksums, for now).
> 
> Following the same logic, why can't such a thing be made part of the TX
> burst function as well (through a direct call to rte_phdr_cksum_fix()
> whenever necessary). From an application standpoint, what are the advantages
> of having to:
> 
>  if (tx_prep()) // iterate and update mbufs as needed
>      tx_burst(); // iterate and send
> 
> Compared to:
> 
>  tx_burst(); // iterate, update as needed and send
> 
> Note that PMDs could still provide different TX callbacks depending on the
> set of enabled offloads so performance is not unnecessarily impacted.
> 
> In my opinion the second approach is both faster to applications and more
> friendly from a usability perspective, am I missing something obvious?

I think it was not clearly explained in this patchset, but this is
my understanding:
tx_prepare and tx_burst can be called at different stages of a pipeline,
on different cores.