From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>,
"Power, Ciara" <ciara.power@intel.com>,
"gakhil@marvell.com" <gakhil@marvell.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] app/test-crypto-perf: add throughput OOP decryption
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 00:30:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CO6PR12MB53960AFE1EC302479CD386EEC13F2@CO6PR12MB5396.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CO6PR12MB5396F5AD595EC8F054CA7463C1332@CO6PR12MB5396.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Hi guys,
Just want to make sure if anything still need to be checked with that patch?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 8:15 AM
> To: Power, Ciara <ciara.power@intel.com>; gakhil@marvell.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] app/test-crypto-perf: add throughput OOP decryption
> >
> > Not totally following some of this, why do we only want to add this
> > for OOP mode?
> >
> > For example an inplace command I can use before this patch but not after:
> > ./build/app/dpdk-test-crypto-perf -l 2,3 -- --ptest throughput
> > --optype aead -- aead-algo aes-gcm --aead-op decrypt --devtype
> > crypto_qat --aead-key-sz 16
> >
> > I get an error;
> > USER1: Only out-of-place is allowed in throughput decryption.
> > USER1: Checking one or more user options failed
> >
> > Do we want to always force the user to use OOP + test vector file for
> > these throughput decryption tests?
> > Or should we just add a warning that the throughput may not be
> > reflecting the "success" verify path in PMD if using inplace and the dummy data.
> >
> > I am not sure.
> > If we do want to add the limitation on the throughput tests, these
> > changes I think are ok for that.
>
> Yes, think about that, in throughput mode, we will not fill the test data time to
> time, otherwise the testing is useless.
> So that means the test data should not be overwritten, otherwise decryption will
> be with invalid data after the first round of decryption. Since the 1st round
> decryption overwritten the data to the original buf. In that case, test decryption
> throughput in non-oop mode is meaningless.
> That's the reason we add that limit to avoid the invalid data issue.
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-01 0:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-05 10:01 [PATCH] " Suanming Mou
2024-03-14 18:44 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2024-03-19 1:57 ` Suanming Mou
2024-03-19 8:23 ` Akhil Goyal
2024-03-19 9:06 ` Suanming Mou
2024-03-19 9:32 ` Akhil Goyal
2024-03-19 11:43 ` Suanming Mou
2024-03-19 11:46 ` [PATCH v2] " Suanming Mou
2024-03-19 15:14 ` Power, Ciara
2024-03-20 0:14 ` Suanming Mou
2024-04-01 0:30 ` Suanming Mou [this message]
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=CO6PR12MB53960AFE1EC302479CD386EEC13F2@CO6PR12MB5396.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=suanmingm@nvidia.com \
--cc=ciara.power@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gakhil@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).