From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
To: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, akhil.goyal@nxp.com
Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs validation
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:55:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33fb2ef0-5609-fd5e-4bc2-b21350946a41@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1603496581-35966-2-git-send-email-nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> Adding explicit different ut when testing for validation
> or latency (early termination enabled or not).
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Aidan Goddard <aidan.goddard@accelercomm.com>
> Acked-by: Dave Burley <dave.burley@accelercomm.com>
> ---
> app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
Should update the copyright.
> 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> index 6e5535d..3554a77 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> @@ -3999,12 +3999,14 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> return i;
> }
>
> +/* Test case for latency/validation for LDPC Decoder */
> static int
> latency_test_ldpc_dec(struct rte_mempool *mempool,
> struct test_buffers *bufs, struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ref_op,
> int vector_mask, uint16_t dev_id, uint16_t queue_id,
> const uint16_t num_to_process, uint16_t burst_sz,
> - uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t *max_time)
> + uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t *max_time,
> + bool disable_et)
> {
> int ret = TEST_SUCCESS;
> uint16_t i, j, dequeued;
> @@ -4026,7 +4028,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> "rte_bbdev_dec_op_alloc_bulk() failed");
>
> /* For latency tests we need to disable early termination */
> - if (check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
> + if (disable_et && check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE))
> ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags -=
> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE;
Bit clearing is usually done with &= ~()
> @@ -4248,7 +4250,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u", op_type);
>
> printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
> - printf("== test: validation/latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op type: %s\n",
> + printf("== test: latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op type: %s\n",
> info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process, op_type_str);
>
> if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC)
> @@ -4270,7 +4272,83 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
> op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params->vector_mask,
> ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
> + burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time, &max_time,
> + true);
> + else
> + iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> + op_params->ref_enc_op,
> + ad->dev_id, queue_id,
> + num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
> + &min_time, &max_time);
This is a repeat of RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC.
Do not need both.
If the point is to have a else and not fail when the op_type is unknown, then
remove the earlier all and comment the else something like
else /* RTE_BBDEC_OP_TURBO_ENC */
> +
> + if (iter <= 0)
> + return TEST_FAILED;
> +
> + printf("Operation latency:\n"
> + "\tavg: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
> + "\tmin: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
> + "\tmax: %lg cycles, %lg us\n",
> + (double)total_time / (double)iter,
> + (double)(total_time * 1000000) / (double)iter /
> + (double)rte_get_tsc_hz(), (double)min_time,
> + (double)(min_time * 1000000) / (double)rte_get_tsc_hz(),
> + (double)max_time, (double)(max_time * 1000000) /
> + (double)rte_get_tsc_hz());
Could remove a tab from the last 9 lines for better alignment with printf
> +
> + return TEST_SUCCESS;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +validation_test(struct active_device *ad,
> + struct test_op_params *op_params)
> +{
> + int iter;
> + uint16_t burst_sz = op_params->burst_sz;
> + const uint16_t num_to_process = op_params->num_to_process;
> + const enum rte_bbdev_op_type op_type = test_vector.op_type;
> + const uint16_t queue_id = ad->queue_ids[0];
> + struct test_buffers *bufs = NULL;
> + struct rte_bbdev_info info;
> + uint64_t total_time, min_time, max_time;
> + const char *op_type_str;
> +
> + total_time = max_time = 0;
> + min_time = UINT64_MAX;
> +
> + TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS((burst_sz > MAX_BURST),
> + "BURST_SIZE should be <= %u", MAX_BURST);
> +
> + rte_bbdev_info_get(ad->dev_id, &info);
> + bufs = &op_params->q_bufs[GET_SOCKET(info.socket_id)][queue_id];
> +
> + op_type_str = rte_bbdev_op_type_str(op_type);
> + TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u", op_type);
> +
> + printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
> + printf("== test: validation\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op type: %s\n",
> + info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process, op_type_str);
> +
> + if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC)
> + iter = latency_test_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
> + op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params->vector_mask,
> + ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
> burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time, &max_time);
> + else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC)
> + iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> + op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id, queue_id,
> + num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
> + &min_time, &max_time);
> + else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_ENC)
> + iter = latency_test_ldpc_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> + op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id, queue_id,
> + num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
> + &min_time, &max_time);
> + else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC)
> + iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
> + op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params->vector_mask,
> + ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
> + burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time, &max_time,
> + false);
This 'false' is the only change from f latency_test.
These should be refactored to a common function. Then use a #define or similar wrapper for calling with/without this flag.
Tom
> else
> iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> op_params->ref_enc_op,
> @@ -4930,6 +5008,12 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> }
>
> static int
> +validation_tc(void)
> +{
> + return run_test_case(validation_test);
> +}
> +
> +static int
> interrupt_tc(void)
> {
> return run_test_case(throughput_test);
> @@ -4960,7 +5044,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> .setup = testsuite_setup,
> .teardown = testsuite_teardown,
> .unit_test_cases = {
> - TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, latency_tc),
> + TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, validation_tc),
> TEST_CASES_END() /**< NULL terminate unit test array */
> }
> };
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-26 12:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-23 23:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates Nicolas Chautru
2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs validation Nicolas Chautru
2020-10-26 12:55 ` Tom Rix [this message]
2020-10-26 17:30 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2020-10-28 20:37 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters Nicolas Chautru
2020-10-26 13:05 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-26 16:29 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2020-10-28 20:31 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading Nicolas Chautru
2020-10-26 13:31 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-26 16:50 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2020-10-28 20:33 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload Nicolas Chautru
2020-10-26 13:33 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-26 16:04 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2020-10-28 20:24 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/7] app/bbdev: skip bler ut when compression is used Nicolas Chautru
2020-10-26 13:35 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-23 23:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/7] app/bbdev: reduce duration of throughput test Nicolas Chautru
2020-10-26 13:39 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-23 23:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full ring Nicolas Chautru
2020-10-26 13:55 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-26 16:27 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2020-10-28 20:28 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-24 7:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates David Marchand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=33fb2ef0-5609-fd5e-4bc2-b21350946a41@redhat.com \
--to=trix@redhat.com \
--cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nicolas.chautru@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).