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 12BCBA054A; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 15:47:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8F140687; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 15:47:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6A54021D for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 15:47:17 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1670338037; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=31VuDUdWrOwR0oxEQMVepLu8aBbM3s960G1u5wAjGZI=; b=Tt2NJxsmchQVLv7edvgqFrUtnMrXVal2a9oEArzwDjH9elbsqnylNafHrpb4nGP7HzR9mZ VLfP8rsHLReX9kt1z79FnKwK3WCzNwlYg0ALI5UddcO09QzpuIeIQnAUQ0YXwWJtQ9AMMV LMcDSseTB0RN/wsGFTo+y7+B71Aihjw= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-85-5zQBqfydOiac53jmM8cwgQ-1; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:47:16 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 5zQBqfydOiac53jmM8cwgQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48F3C858F17; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 14:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.39.208.28] (unknown [10.39.208.28]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 710F12166B26; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 14:47:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <341c09aa-409b-b3af-6b9b-1b5032ade35d@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 15:46:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] test/bbdev: fix build issue with optional build flag To: "Chautru, Nicolas" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "gakhil@marvell.com" Cc: "Vargas, Hernan" , "Vipin.Varghese@amd.com" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Ferruh.Yigit@amd.com" , "Clinton.France@amd.com" References: <20221124160616.6161-1-nicolas.chautru@intel.com> <20221124160616.6161-3-nicolas.chautru@intel.com> From: Maxime Coquelin In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Hi Nicolas, On 12/6/22 01:18, Chautru, Nicolas wrote: > Hi Maxime, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Maxime Coquelin >> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 12:09 PM >> To: Chautru, Nicolas ; dev@dpdk.org; >> thomas@monjalon.net; gakhil@marvell.com >> Cc: Vargas, Hernan ; Vipin.Varghese@amd.com; >> Mcnamara, John ; Ferruh.Yigit@amd.com; >> Clinton.France@amd.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] test/bbdev: fix build issue with optional build flag >> >> Hi Nicolas, >> >> On 11/24/22 17:06, Nicolas Chautru wrote: >>> Missing implementation for offload test with FFT. >>> Only build when the optional build flag RTE_BBDEV_OFFLOAD_COST is set. >>> >>> Fixes: 0acdb9866756 ("test/bbdev: add FFT operations cases") >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru >>> --- >>> app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 82 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> index 1859952901..b2e536b5e3 100644 >>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> @@ -4940,6 +4940,88 @@ get_bbdev_queue_stats(uint16_t dev_id, >> uint16_t queue_id, >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +static int >>> +offload_latency_test_fft(struct rte_mempool *mempool, struct >> test_buffers *bufs, >>> + struct rte_bbdev_fft_op *ref_op, uint16_t dev_id, >>> + uint16_t queue_id, const uint16_t num_to_process, >>> + uint16_t burst_sz, struct test_time_stats *time_st) { >>> + int i, dequeued, ret; >>> + struct rte_bbdev_fft_op *ops_enq[MAX_BURST], >> *ops_deq[MAX_BURST]; >>> + uint64_t enq_start_time, deq_start_time; >>> + uint64_t enq_sw_last_time, deq_last_time; >>> + struct rte_bbdev_stats stats; >>> + >>> + for (i = 0, dequeued = 0; dequeued < num_to_process; ++i) { >>> + uint16_t enq = 0, deq = 0; >>> + >>> + if (unlikely(num_to_process - dequeued < burst_sz)) >>> + burst_sz = num_to_process - dequeued; >>> + >>> + rte_bbdev_fft_op_alloc_bulk(mempool, ops_enq, burst_sz); >> >> It might be safer to check for error. > > We don’t check for error on the _op_alloc_bulk() for any of the other offload test functions. This could be changed through an independent patchset. > Are you okay to apply as is on the next-baseband subtree? Or you prefer a v2 with an additional commit now for all these functions? Both options would be fine to me as long as it is fixed for all the similar functions. Thanks, Maxime > > Thanks > Nic > >> >> Given how late we are in the release, and also because it is in the test >> application, I'm fine if the fix is done in next release. >> >> Other than that, it looks good to me: >> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin >> >> Thanks, >> Maxime >