From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>
Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
"Dybkowski, AdamX" <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Shally Verma <shallyv@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] test/compress: im buffer too small - add unit tests
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:31:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200416143138.GA1695@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR11MB2880E135298D1A3FCE1C5510E4D80@SN6PR11MB2880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:26:46AM +0000, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 11:25 AM
> > To: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com>; Dybkowski, AdamX <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>;
> > dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Shally Verma <shallyv@marvell.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] test/compress: im buffer too small - add unit tests
> >
> > Hi Fiona,
> > >
> > > Hi Akhil,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Fiona/Adam,
> > > >
> > > > > This patch adds a new test suite for verification of the "internal
> > > > > QAT IM buffer too small" case handling. These unit tests are
> > > > > specific to the QAT PMD only - that's why they are contained in
> > > > > a separate test suite.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Why do we need to have separate testsuite for QAT?
> > > > Can't we have a single one and based on capability of the driver,
> > > > Determine which tests need to be skipped in case they are not supported.
> > > > This would create a mess in the longer run just like cryptodev.
> > > >
> > > > Please fix this, we cannot take this patch as is.
> > >
> > > [Fiona] Yes, I understand your concern and we considered including in the main
> > > suite.
> > > However these tests are not based on something that can be
> > > checked in capabilities. They are tests to hone in on a specific corner case
> > > based on a QAT limitation in its intermediate buffer size. So some of the
> > > tests are to validate that the recent changes we made in the PMD correctly
> > > work around that limitation, but other tests are negative and expected to fail
> > > as provoking a corner-case that still exists. Other devices would probably not fail
> > > the same tests.
> >
> > Does that mean that all PMDs will pass with the newly added testcase which is for
> > A corner case in QAT. If that is the case what is the issue in adding that in the main
> > Test suite. It will get passed in all PMDs, isn't it? Am I missing something?
> >
> > I believe we should not have PMD specific test suites, rather it should be based on
> > Capabilities to identify the cases which should be run for that particular PMD.
> [Fiona] yes, several of the cases should pass on all PMDs.
> So we could move those into the main suite.
> But what to do about the negative tests?
> Example: If a very large data buffer is passed to QAT to compress with dyn compression, it will get
> split in the PMD into many smaller requests to the hardware. However if the number
> of requests is bigger than can fit on the qp then this will never succeed. The test
> validates that the PMD behaves appropriately in this expected error case. That same
> case would probably not have an error on another device. Maybe we should just leave out
> such negative tests, but I find them useful as they validate the known behaviour.
> The buffer size used in the test is based on the known size QAT can handle and the
> corner case in which QAT will return an error.
>
> I see 4 options to handle this:
> 1. Leave out those tests
> 2. Use a qat-specific test suite only for negative cases which are constructed based on specific qat internal meta-data.
> 3. Include the negative tests in the main suite, but only run them on QAT (by checking driver type)
> 4. include the negative tests in the main suite, run them on all, expecting a FAIL from QAT and a PASS from other devices.
>
> My preference is for 2.
> But up to you.
>
While not something for this release, perhaps in future cryptodev could
implement a "selftest()" callback API like rawdev does [1], which allows
drivers to implement their own specific test cases too.
[1] http://doc.dpdk.org/api-20.02/rte__rawdev_8h.html#a776edaa7060fc6a9d66e00f84132e140
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-16 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-08 12:50 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] compress/qat: im buffer too small - split op Adam Dybkowski
2020-04-08 12:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] " Adam Dybkowski
2020-04-08 15:43 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-04-08 12:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] test/compress: im buffer too small - add unit tests Adam Dybkowski
2020-04-08 15:44 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-04-15 18:35 ` Akhil Goyal
2020-04-16 10:02 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-04-16 10:25 ` Akhil Goyal
2020-04-16 11:26 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-04-16 14:31 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2020-04-16 14:55 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-04-16 14:37 ` Akhil Goyal
2020-04-16 14:52 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-04-17 15:39 ` Akhil Goyal
2020-04-17 15:56 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-04-17 15:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] compress/qat: im buffer too small - split op Adam Dybkowski
2020-04-17 15:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] " Adam Dybkowski
2020-04-17 15:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] test/compress: im buffer too small - add unit tests Adam Dybkowski
2020-04-17 15:58 ` Trahe, Fiona
2020-04-17 21:50 ` Akhil Goyal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200416143138.GA1695@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=adamx.dybkowski@intel.com \
--cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=fiona.trahe@intel.com \
--cc=shallyv@marvell.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).