From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com (mail-oi0-f67.google.com [209.85.218.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0823772 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 20:31:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oi0-f67.google.com with SMTP id f12so12519265oig.0 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:31:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TH42CEHOgFENFy5jIN0JpJYBaCSPVi3w8FggW7CrPRk=; b=E5njB0jI7K86CDVBtF6B8yPR8IszWtUtsFM8tyMUDRpw9zGXveEqIuO1H/6vr7Toyu Brpoq5AussqMqZB71vx6NAz6oC2mpFiP2kZHc6QYu08a0xgZQMTC0dd8HOP4Ket9Wybf VCFv6d/nduezs9JBYTUY4X1rl+Lbayf4mIZT7r5qKqBydv1mxOZGHpwOx/TuOXANlvEk qJtxGUn8IhtZlb9nxEG+ZZv0noNcFe/sYGDI5rqzy94+7jaOkINTz4H0qH6B/LDBkPKM xNSxChvLZxdIMVF63oNf31BdbDpFEGtfSfVkxPmdNnA2K6PdwhF9L63IN/rL++0phPf8 rvbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TH42CEHOgFENFy5jIN0JpJYBaCSPVi3w8FggW7CrPRk=; b=OLNfj8DXXQUzPaKoAE8pNTuOOxnWBV2rLmfb4B4GOrjm1WV7B8D85OKf9gfOxBGSOX 7sI8dczNm1oW8oY0BkhQvEHHjB0YSxTYaHVKWOL/Xt9fBT7o5fjQDgTojLxFH2vUWAwl uxmEiZ93OA/IcKwUpW/vV8G1pqC+kRWJ6n1JGaXEO2w66Y3vS/HU6druuT9EpLI53pwB EeJ8CEdjAIN4+kJ6rnnjqYYSAZTZFvTfq9fnW+wtYp4pE2jb6EqWgrY86sfLWg0sOtY2 dCjhB3zuf0NdAXJ4S24Q0QUiVFtqb89hUiv2YXYnLKd1ykuqnFzCtzXQcKGe1qn4UwWw oi8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJbV48RIJxrIpUyxogjEremgqoGsFF98MzIvCYAqdGt/rzK9RxC4s7cK03l1OLMzuDXEU2KDay257gF8g== X-Received: by 10.157.16.10 with SMTP id h10mr1932952ote.91.1465237907689; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.171.20 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE09411074394E@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1457391583-29604-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com> <1457391644-29645-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com> <1457391644-29645-2-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com> <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE09411074394E@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Ravi Kerur Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:31:47 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Wang, Zhihong" , Thomas Monjalon Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] Test cases for rte_memcmp functions X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 18:31:48 -0000 Zhilong, Thomas, If there is enough interest within DPDK community I can work on adding support for 'unaligned access' and 'test cases' for it. Please let me know either way. Thanks, Ravi On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Wang, Zhihong wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ravi Kerur > > Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 7:01 AM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] Test cases for rte_memcmp functions > > > > v1: > > This patch adds test cases for rte_memcmp functions. > > New rte_memcmp functions can be tested via 'make test' > > and 'testpmd' utility. > > > > Compiled and tested on Ubuntu 14.04(non-NUMA) and > > 15.10(NUMA) systems. > [...] > > > +/************************************************************ > > ******************* > > + * Memcmp function performance test configuration section. Each > performance > > test > > + * will be performed MEMCMP_ITERATIONS times. > > + * > > + * The five arrays below control what tests are performed. Every > combination > > + * from the array entries is tested. > > + */ > > +#define MEMCMP_ITERATIONS (500 * 500 * 500) > > > Maybe less iteration will make the test faster without compromise precison? > > > > + > > +static size_t memcmp_sizes[] = { > > + 2, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 31, 32, 33, 63, 64, 65, 127, 128, > > + 129, 191, 192, 193, 255, 256, 257, 319, 320, 321, 383, 384, > > + 385, 447, 448, 449, 511, 512, 513, 767, 768, 769, 1023, 1024, > > + 1025, 1522, 1536, 1600, 2048, 2560, 3072, 3584, 4096, 4608, > > + 5632, 6144, 6656, 7168, 7680, 8192, 16834 > > +}; > > + > [...] > > +/* > > + * Do all performance tests. > > + */ > > +static int > > +test_memcmp_perf(void) > > +{ > > + if (run_all_memcmp_eq_perf_tests() != 0) > > + return -1; > > + > > + if (run_all_memcmp_gt_perf_tests() != 0) > > + return -1; > > + > > + if (run_all_memcmp_lt_perf_tests() != 0) > > + return -1; > > + > > > Perhaps unaligned test cases are needed here. > How do you think? > > > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static struct test_command memcmp_perf_cmd = { > > + .command = "memcmp_perf_autotest", > > + .callback = test_memcmp_perf, > > +}; > > +REGISTER_TEST_COMMAND(memcmp_perf_cmd); > > -- > > 1.9.1 > >