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 5947BA00C2; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 21:09:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415E340150; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 21:09:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790EF4014F for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 21:09:22 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1669320561; 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=V+6fH1mKEEM08Yz3QaxwP+p7QDp8HPRlNLtCeMMx9c0=; b=Xe1ZVXSVXopm2m79Klp9lhPnIA8plg+6W4alCpj1M4LfrOz1IYwSwfvdAIXV+GdS/+0DyG CLYBiCSe5S3XWsMgkVC4QKreym6pstoHAgXtL2Hdespi6z1na5KgaD02COy23gvq/rm4tt +6TlGojnn2ZG2IEaLzO67VTqi+VCfUE= 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-516-u1iZHOkhMgCSXxeWDg_t9g-1; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 15:09:20 -0500 X-MC-Unique: u1iZHOkhMgCSXxeWDg_t9g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7273811E67; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 20:09:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.39.208.25] (unknown [10.39.208.25]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10542492B1B; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 20:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 21:09:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 To: Nicolas Chautru , dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, gakhil@marvell.com Cc: hernan.vargas@intel.com, Vipin.Varghese@amd.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com, 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] test/bbdev: fix build issue with optional build flag In-Reply-To: <20221124160616.6161-3-nicolas.chautru@intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 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: 7bit 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 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. 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