Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/9] test/ring: add contention stress test

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

> > > +static int
> > > +test_worker_prcs(void *arg)
> > > +{
> > > +	int32_t rc;
> > > +	uint32_t lc, n, num;
> > minor, lcore instead of lc would be better
> >
> > > +	uint64_t cl, tm0, tm1;
> > > +	struct lcore_arg *la;
> > > +	struct ring_elem def_elm, loc_elm;
> > > +	struct ring_elem *obj[2 * BULK_NUM];
> > > +
> > > +	la = arg;
> > > +	lc = rte_lcore_id();
> > > +
> > > +	fill_ring_elm(&def_elm, UINT32_MAX);
> > > +	fill_ring_elm(&loc_elm, lc);
> > > +
> > > +	while (wrk_cmd != WRK_CMD_RUN) {
> > > +		rte_smp_rmb();
> > > +		rte_pause();
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	cl = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> > > +
> > > +	do {
> > > +		/* num in interval [7/8, 11/8] of BULK_NUM */
> > > +		num = 7 * BULK_NUM / 8 + rte_rand() % (BULK_NUM / 2);
> > > +
> > > +		/* reset all pointer values */
> > > +		memset(obj, 0, sizeof(obj));
> > > +
> > > +		/* dequeue num elems */
> > > +		tm0 = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> > > +		n = _st_ring_dequeue_bulk(la->rng, (void **)obj, num, NULL);
> > > +		tm0 = rte_rdtsc_precise() - tm0;
> > > +
> > > +		/* check return value and objects */
> > > +		rc = check_ring_op(num, n, lc, __func__,
> > > +			RTE_STR(_st_ring_dequeue_bulk));
> > > +		if (rc == 0)
> > > +			rc = check_updt_elem(obj, num, &def_elm,
> > > &loc_elm);
> > > +		if (rc != 0)
> > > +			break;
> > Since this seems like a performance test, should we skip validating the objects?

I think it is good to have test doing validation too.
It shouldn't affect measurements, but brings extra confidentiality
that our ring implementation works properly and doesn't introduce 
any races. 

> > Did these tests run on Travis CI?

AFAIK, no but people can still run it manually.

>> I believe Travis CI has trouble running stress/performance tests if they take too much time.
> > The RTS and HTS tests should be added to functional tests.

Ok, I'll try to add some extra functional tests in v4.