rte_reorder: Allow sequence numbers > 0 as starting point
PATCH 1/1 rte_reorder: Allow sequence numbers > 0 as starting point
We use sequence numbers from a generator which has potentially started long before the receiver. Therefore, the first number will typically be > 0. The rte_reorder code will not work in this case, since the packet is seen as outside of the buffer.
The patch instead records the first sequence number inserted as the starting point.
--- lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c +8 -0
@@ -73,6 +73,8 @@ struct rte_reorder_buffer {unsigned int memsize;/**< memory area size of reorder buffer */ struct cir_buffer ready_buf;/**< temp buffer for dequeued entries */ struct cir_buffer order_buf;/**< buffer used to reorder entries */ + +int is_initialized; } __rte_cache_aligned; static void
@@ -325,6 +327,12 @@ rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)uint32_t offset, position;struct cir_buffer *order_buf = &b->order_buf; +if (!b->is_initialized) { + b->min_seqn = mbuf->seqn; + + b->is_initialized =1 ; + } +/* * calculate the offset from the head pointer we need to go. * The subtraction takes care of the sequence number wrapping.
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
Sorry for the delay :)
Quoted 4 lines · Simon Kagstrom
We use sequence numbers from a generator which has potentially started long before the receiver. Therefore, the first number will typically be > 0. The
rte_reordercode will not work in this case, since the packet is seen as outside of the buffer.
Yep, that is a flaw in the current implementation.
Quoted 25 lines
The patch instead records the first sequence number inserted as the starting point.
Signed-off-by Simon Kagstrom <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Johan Faltstrom <[email protected]>--- lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c +2
-0@@ -73,6 +73,8 @@ struct rte_reorder_buffer {unsigned int memsize;/**< memory area size of reorder buffer */ struct cir_buffer ready_buf;/**< temp buffer for dequeued entries */ struct cir_buffer order_buf;/**< buffer used to reorder entries */ + +int is_initialized; } __rte_cache_aligned; static void@@ -325,6 +327,12 @@ rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)uint32_t offset, position;struct cir_buffer *order_buf = &b->order_buf;
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf) · line 338
Quoted 10 lines
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c +6
-0+if (!b->is_initialized) { + b->min_seqn = mbuf->seqn; + + b->is_initialized =1 ; + } +/* * calculate the offset from the head pointer we need to go. * The subtraction takes care of the sequence number wrapping.
So my first impression was, why do this in insert instead of init?
I guess the goal was trying to avoid changing the API, but would it not be worth it? after all is a one time thing only.
About the implementation, packets being inserted could be out of order, so the first packet inserted may not be the first in your sequence. Now what happens with that packet would be app specific so probably is not a big deal but what about initializing min_seqn to something like (mbuf->seqn - b->size/2) ? That would give enough room for packets out of order.
You should also update the documentation regarding rte_reorder_insert.
Thanks,
Sergio
Thanks for the review, Sergio!
Quoted 8 lines · Sergio
Quoted 8 lines
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c +3
-0@@ -325,6 +327,12 @@ rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)uint32_t offset, position;struct cir_buffer *order_buf = &b->order_buf; + if (!b->is_initialized) { + b->min_seqn = mbuf->seqn; + + b->is_initialized =1 ;
Quoted 8 lines
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf) · line 338
Quoted 5 lines
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c +2
-0+ } +/* * calculate the offset from the head pointer we need to go. * The subtraction takes care of the sequence number wrapping. So my first impression was, why do this in insert instead of init? I guess the goal was trying to avoid changing the API, but would it not be worth it? after all is a one time thing only.
We don't know the first sequence number until the first insert, so I think it has to be there. Alternatively, there could be an API to set the minimum sequence number, but I think that would instead make the application uglier, and isn't that also just exposing library implementation details in the API?
Quoted 6 lines
About the implementation, packets being inserted could be out of order, so the first packet inserted may not be the first in your sequence. Now what happens with that packet would be app specific so probably is not a big deal but what about initializing
min_seqnto something like (mbuf->seqn- b->size/2) ? That would give enough room for packets out of order.
I thought about that, but you will always miss some packets if you have an active stream at start anyway, so in the end I removed that part.
But perhaps you are right about this issue, I'm not sure.
Quoted 1 line
You should also update the documentation regarding
rte_reorder_insert.
Actually, the rte_reorder.h file says nothing about the (current) limitation of the first seq number having to be 0, so I think this patch actually improves the documentation without touching it :-)
// Simon
Quoted 19 lines · Simon Kågström
Thanks for the review, Sergio!
Quoted 8 lines · Sergio
Quoted 8 lines
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c +3
-0@@ -325,6 +327,12 @@ rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)uint32_t offset, position;struct cir_buffer *order_buf = &b->order_buf; + if (!b->is_initialized) { + b->min_seqn = mbuf->seqn; + + b->is_initialized =1 ;Quoted 8 lines
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf) · line 338
Quoted 5 lines
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c +2
-0+ } +/* * calculate the offset from the head pointer we need to go. * The subtraction takes care of the sequence number wrapping. So my first impression was, why do this in insert instead of init? I guess the goal was trying to avoid changing the API, but would it not be worth it? after all is a one time thing only.
Quoted 5 lines
We don't know the first sequence number until the first insert, so I think it has to be there. Alternatively, there could be an API to set the minimum sequence number, but I think that would instead make the application uglier, and isn't that also just exposing library implementation details in the API?
Yes, I agree.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
About the implementation, packets being inserted could be out of order, so the first packet inserted may not be the first in your sequence. Now what happens with that packet would be app specific so probably is not a big deal but what about initializing
min_seqnto something like (mbuf->seqn- b->size/2) ? That would give enough room for packets out of order.I thought about that, but you will always miss some packets if you have an active stream at start anyway, so in the end I removed that part.
As you said, it would not make much difference from the stream point of view.
Quoted 6 lines
But perhaps you are right about this issue, I'm not sure.
Quoted 1 line
You should also update the documentation regarding
rte_reorder_insert.Actually, the
rte_reorder.hfile says nothing about the (current) limitation of the first seq number having to be 0, so I think this patch actually improves the documentation without touching it :-)
Fair enough :)
Sergio
Quoted 1 line
// Simon
Quoted 30 lines · Simon Kagstrom
We use sequence numbers from a generator which has potentially started long before the receiver. Therefore, the first number will typically be > 0. The
rte_reordercode will not work in this case, since the packet is seen as outside of the buffer.The patch instead records the first sequence number inserted as the starting point.
Signed-off-by Simon Kagstrom <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Johan Faltstrom <[email protected]>--- lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c +2
-0@@ -73,6 +73,8 @@ struct rte_reorder_buffer {unsigned int memsize;/**< memory area size of reorder buffer */ struct cir_buffer ready_buf;/**< temp buffer for dequeued entries */ struct cir_buffer order_buf;/**< buffer used to reorder entries */ + +int is_initialized; } __rte_cache_aligned; static void@@ -325,6 +327,12 @@ rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)uint32_t offset, position;struct cir_buffer *order_buf = &b->order_buf;
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c rte_reorder_insert(struct rte_reorder_buffer *b, struct rte_mbuf *mbuf) · line 338
Quoted 10 lines
lib/librte_reorder/rte_reorder.c +6
-0+if (!b->is_initialized) { + b->min_seqn = mbuf->seqn; + + b->is_initialized =1 ; + } +/* * calculate the offset from the head pointer we need to go. * The subtraction takes care of the sequence number wrapping.
Thomas Monjalon
Applied2015-05-29 17:37, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio:
Quoted 6 lines · Simon Kagstrom
Quoted 5 lines
We use sequence numbers from a generator which has potentially started long before the receiver. Therefore, the first number will typically be > 0. The
rte_reordercode will not work in this case, since the packet is seen as outside of the buffer.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
The patch instead records the first sequence number inserted as the starting point.
Signed-off-by Simon Kagstrom <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Johan Faltstrom <[email protected]>
Applied, thanks