From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67017BDB4 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:22:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m124so24526334wme.1 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:22:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jf73ITq1Dihkw6OCoT7F4W6UGI1PKCTJkeEt0+Svad8=; b=ceBbRf6hprPwTx3FhjPp82WCl+est8eajyLSwysAw5HBZABDuZ2/YplOj82EVOnk9F MEL3JbLJJpzsXimxZg6u53gYauDxbxjw+uz4f6+gquIql6efISUMKIM3uFiOnlXn/ogx cKJFAQ+619thy8qAmHjQcm2VK5zoa3Omf1BoRcGmm19u2ihEUJcMLL9t9fQ5qfBQj4RH oJQC1L2dde1m9AJbNeaxItU7ANa7q9ZkpC3ACinjZBPE4Q5EA6Jpif7RuVuP4Zlhuypx iFsusN/wuw0rUIAb6+luZgwMXOxjRoo/I9C7JsZB0MVkZvfkcSDDRGfDxhsZpbPaiAQK RMfQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jf73ITq1Dihkw6OCoT7F4W6UGI1PKCTJkeEt0+Svad8=; b=PtcgFJ258dV4PYwT3zQjriEupaepPrfC/lufn2QU1k+2NH4cMxxeGgHO/hT7wF5E9V tf8T5rv/xDMGs0wKUP6opR9FqAz7amFGUgedSYBqXcxnFVVNiEcMSkzMpjZ8gXEJu9Ge 91/WcsVBopKf/nA7ziBqPMUp0CcMaaV5z7yZcchaWh9o4GMokXugEuWNgd8eoQ0/ExEQ tQwyi6kRjRH+dCqnSds1rQSfYMps4DW8yVFw9NvTUD5ljnudnT3ORc3H4Rx7TFNzvhGF HyJybQ3jQvnSXOjREVvqLoEotibtHUPwofZwJkZ+ofGiRUjOeJxa7qAi411mEp0iS4Zl P98g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKrK9CrstUz1ZG0J1Snids6ombK7rzVMzirYWYzhHw/qtPf4v4CmUaduRIZVoTnyIP9 X-Received: by 10.28.154.10 with SMTP id c10mr5971616wme.63.1465402974196; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id vv1sm2282223wjc.34.2016.06.08.09.22.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:22:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> To: "Kantecki, Tomasz" <tomasz.kantecki@intel.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:22:52 +0200 Message-ID: <2506582.jAQRcmA1gs@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <E79CF84CF47B0B42B66F4F5835125F9C8182D3AB@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1465307358-115427-1-git-send-email-tomasz.kantecki@intel.com> <5309764.cBvyyiAfAy@xps13> <E79CF84CF47B0B42B66F4F5835125F9C8182D3AB@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/test: reduced duration of red_autotest X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list 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> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:22:54 -0000 2016-06-08 15:56, Kantecki, Tomasz: > Hi Thomas, > > > > 12s is long for a functional test. We are used to have tests of less than 1s. > > > Do you think this magnitude order can be achieved for red tests? > > > > This is a real challenge :) Let me take another look into it. > > I had a 2nd look into this test suite and reducing time for functional tests is doable but labor intensive. Let me explain: > RED/WRED algorithm is time based (packet queue events in time). For tracking time the test uses TSC (x86 time stamp counter). This could be replaced with some fake time stamp in functional tests and result in significant reduction of execution time. It needs couple of days to carefully replace TSC with a fake time stamp solution without breaking test logic. Sorry, I haven't dived into the code, but I don't understand how we get some seconds delays in a code for fast processing on nano-second CPU. Are you sure you cannot have the same result with less iterations and shorter timeouts?