Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] test/hash: add test for 'free key with position'

[Dharmik Thakkar <Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com>]

> On May 8, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, thanks for the patch!
> Reply inlined:
Hi Yipeng,
Thank you for the review!
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dharmik Thakkar [mailto:dharmik.thakkar@arm.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 9:51 AM
>> To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
>> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com; zhongdahulinfan@163.com; Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] test/hash: add test for 'free key with position'
>> 
>> This patch adds a unit test for rte_hash_free_key_with_position().
>> 
>> Suggested-by: Linfan <zhongdahulinfan@163.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
>> ---
>> app/test/test_hash.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/app/test/test_hash.c b/app/test/test_hash.c
>> index 390fbef87f42..a6949f2579a2 100644
>> --- a/app/test/test_hash.c
>> +++ b/app/test/test_hash.c
>> @@ -481,6 +481,87 @@ static int test_add_update_delete_free(void)
>> 	return 0;
>> }
>> 
>> +/*
>> + * Sequence of operations for a single key with 'rw concurrency lock free' set:
>> + *	- add
>> + *	- delete: hit
>> + *	- free: hit
>> + * Repeat the test case when 'multi writer add' is enabled.
>> + *	- add
>> + *	- delete: hit
>> + *	- free: hit
>> + */
>> +static int test_add_delete_free_lf(void)
>> +{
>> +#define LCORE_CACHE_SIZE	64
> [Wang, Yipeng]  We could say this should match the #define LCORE_CACHE_SIZE value in rte_cuckoo_hash.h
Sure, will add in the next version.
> I also found the #define BUCKET_ENTRIES 4 in this file without comment. I think it should match #define RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES
> Which is supposed to be 8? If so please add a commit for bug fix.
I think this is done to test with bad parameters.
> 
>> +	struct rte_hash *handle;
>> +	hash_sig_t hash_value;
>> +	int pos, expectedPos, delPos;
>> +	uint8_t extra_flag;
>> +	uint32_t i, ip_src;
>> +
>> +	extra_flag = ut_params.extra_flag;
>> +	ut_params.extra_flag = RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY_LF;
>> +	handle = rte_hash_create(&ut_params);
>> +	RETURN_IF_ERROR(handle == NULL, "hash creation failed");
>> +	ut_params.extra_flag = extra_flag;
>> +
> [Wang, Yipeng]  Here we could say:" The number of iterations is at least the same as the number of slots rte_hash allocates internally. This is to
> Reveal potential issues of not freeing keys successfully."
> Same for the other loop.
Will add in the next version.
> 
>> +	for (i = 0; i < ut_params.entries + 1; i++) {
>> +		hash_value = rte_hash_hash(handle, &keys[0]);
>> +		pos = rte_hash_add_key_with_hash(handle, &keys[0], hash_value);
>> +		print_key_info("Add", &keys[0], pos);
>> +		RETURN_IF_ERROR(pos < 0, "failed to add key (pos=%d)", pos);
> ..
> 
> Thanks
> Yipeng