[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] app/eventdev: add burst mode for event timer adapter

[Carrillo, Erik G]

Hi Pavan,

One comment in-line:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavan Nikhilesh [mailto:pbhagavatula at caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 8:12 AM
> To: jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com;
> santosh.shukla at caviumnetworks.com; Carrillo, Erik G
> <erik.g.carrillo at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula at caviumnetworks.com>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] app/eventdev: add burst mode for event
> timer adapter
> 
> Add burst mode for event timer adapter that can be selected by passing --
> prod_type_timerdev_burst.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula at caviumnetworks.com>
> ---

<...snipped...> 

> diff --git a/app/test-eventdev/test_perf_common.c b/app/test-
> eventdev/test_perf_common.c
> index 6ae146d91..072b5f8cf 100644
> --- a/app/test-eventdev/test_perf_common.c
> +++ b/app/test-eventdev/test_perf_common.c
> @@ -128,6 +128,61 @@ perf_event_timer_producer(void *arg)
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> +static inline int
> +perf_event_timer_producer_burst(void *arg) {
> +	int i;
> +	struct prod_data *p  = arg;
> +	struct test_perf *t = p->t;
> +	struct evt_options *opt = t->opt;
> +	uint32_t flow_counter = 0;
> +	uint64_t count = 0;
> +	uint64_t arm_latency = 0;
> +	const uint8_t nb_timer_adptrs = opt->nb_timer_adptrs;
> +	const uint32_t nb_flows = t->nb_flows;
> +	const uint64_t nb_timers = opt->nb_timers;
> +	struct rte_mempool *pool = t->pool;
> +	struct perf_elt *m[BURST_SIZE + 1] = {NULL};
> +	struct rte_event_timer_adapter **adptr = t->timer_adptr;
> +	const struct rte_event_timer tim = {
> +		.ev.op = RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW,
> +		.ev.queue_id = p->queue_id,
> +		.ev.sched_type = t->opt->sched_type_list[0],
> +		.ev.priority = RTE_EVENT_DEV_PRIORITY_NORMAL,
> +		.ev.event_type =  RTE_EVENT_TYPE_TIMER,
> +		.timeout_ticks = (opt->nb_bkt_tcks * opt->bkt_tck_nsec) /
> +			opt->optm_bkt_tck_nsec,
> +	};

We should also initialize .state = RTE_EVENT_TIMER_NOT_ARMED here.  Also, if we decide to use the ceiling of the fraction in the prior patch, then the same would apply here.

Thanks,
Gabriel