@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static void *run_thread_tx(void *arg)
int thr_id;
odp_queue_t outq;
pkt_tx_stats_t *stats;
- uint64_t next_tx_cycles, start_cycles, cur_cycles, send_duration;
+ uint64_t burst_start_cycles, start_cycles, cur_cycles, send_duration;
uint64_t burst_gap_cycles;
uint32_t batch_len;
int unsent_pkts = 0;
@@ -336,11 +336,12 @@ static void *run_thread_tx(void *arg)
cur_cycles = odp_time_cycles();
start_cycles = cur_cycles;
- next_tx_cycles = cur_cycles;
+ burst_start_cycles = odp_time_diff_cycles(burst_gap_cycles, cur_cycles);
while (odp_time_diff_cycles(start_cycles, cur_cycles) < send_duration) {
unsigned alloc_cnt = 0, tx_cnt;
- if (cur_cycles < next_tx_cycles) {
+ if (odp_time_diff_cycles(burst_start_cycles, cur_cycles)
+ < burst_gap_cycles) {
cur_cycles = odp_time_cycles();
if (idle_start == 0)
idle_start = cur_cycles;
@@ -353,7 +354,7 @@ static void *run_thread_tx(void *arg)
idle_start = 0;
}
- next_tx_cycles += burst_gap_cycles;
+ burst_start_cycles += burst_gap_cycles;
alloc_cnt = alloc_packets(tx_event, batch_len - unsent_pkts);
if (alloc_cnt != batch_len)
The direct comparing of "cur_cycles" and "next_tx_cycles" is not valid, as "next_tx_cycles" can be overflowed and comparison will give wrong result. So use odp_time_diff_cycles() for that, as it takes into account ticks overflow. Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> --- test/performance/odp_pktio_perf.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)