From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294E443B61; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:22:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171AA402D1; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:22:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from wfout6-smtp.messagingengine.com (wfout6-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.149]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BFB3402CE for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:22:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708601C0007D; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 05:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 21 Feb 2024 05:22:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1708510959; x=1708597359; bh=TUG9bjCxxR/XKPLOxNAHYUFbDxz0DvAFu4JoOaMZA1E=; b= MiFVkv8+r1alNiVQAOk8mgYoDDldnC002hkArj1Qfd37Y+fIvKk8MavgTmnnu32z 7BY8YaRIefEKHcHGn08LDvWQnYstX9cQWy81ckJ2I1GrbrvLLIHpKXrfH53bKlVy Kse+pqOvjbufZxdZhnuINaLqCSw4YaqyPro8P2URCa0nRq+1P16TzroGv5jq1Wxf DenlIxCZQNmJgPxAbDJ7zeBDkbaX+WEovfj8Fk9uv3kTo74sZ+H2uSkPavzBnegP Kx33rXSHc1V5vWKr3K0TbHCrrts2oDN3WH4qRx4jLZxx2JXDIcP/tSTT5sFCu4yn gLva2I2+Kb75UptiBtiVeA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1708510959; x= 1708597359; bh=TUG9bjCxxR/XKPLOxNAHYUFbDxz0DvAFu4JoOaMZA1E=; b=A aOo7wOCPptPEx8AKF1YrD815F0pR7KvwbLIVe/rRRd0SonouKdYp3q5w0eUshqAs ejUj3XyKI2hqsM+KRYT96TZPTGKpXawD4LvAEakBJyq0EOPI7ggBIIikihWy/gNe TkFy8F5NlRbMZVl14v+DCDqa5eldp2yFYyPqIsbPptpwZz3tZ9Jq5VC/CiOL2i05 ZOrxKqRT2GqmAkDt63cqWYTjAOylJCMBZbTolKqN4QKpjGseJ9V4pYjvk6czMeDv x3l7uE2LQIzPSxZTioRGfZ50BO6gyWr3LD2REFsrxtP992pxuHgst36r118CoWka iVEV/znBDVDtR9vWCt1gg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrfedvgdduhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttddunecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfefhjeeluedvvedtuddtuedtvefhieejtefhffeujefhteduudev tdektdeikeffnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 05:22:38 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= Cc: andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru, fengchengwen@huawei.com, dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mempool: test performance with larger bursts Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:22:37 +0100 Message-ID: <3407155.BzM5BlMlMQ@thomas> In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F237@smartserver.smartshare.dk> References: <20240121045249.22465-1-mb@smartsharesystems.com> <3522622.fIoEIV5pvu@thomas> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F237@smartserver.smartshare.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 20/02/2024 14:49, Morten Br=F8rup: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > 24/01/2024 12:21, Morten Br=F8rup: > > > REGISTER_PERF_TEST(mempool_perf_autotest, test_mempool_perf); > > > +REGISTER_PERF_TEST(mempool_perf_autotest_1core, > > test_mempool_perf_1core); > > > +REGISTER_PERF_TEST(mempool_perf_autotest_2cores, > > test_mempool_perf_2cores); > >=20 > > How do we make sure the test is skipped if we have only 1 core? >=20 > Good point. Will fix in next version. >=20 > >=20 > > > +REGISTER_PERF_TEST(mempool_perf_autotest_allcores, > > test_mempool_perf_allcores); > >=20 > > How the test duration is changed after this patch? >=20 > On my test machine, the expanded test parameter set increased the duratio= n of one test run from 20 minutes to 100 minutes. > Before the patch, all three test runs were always executed, i.e. a total = duration of 60 minutes. >=20 > In other words: > The expanded test parameter set increased the test run duration by factor= five. > Introducing the ability to optionally only test with a specific number of= lcores reduced the total test duration to a third. That's a very long test. It would be interesting to find a way to make it shorter.