From: Feifei Wang <Feifei.Wang2@arm.com>
To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, nd <nd@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>,
nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] 回复: [PATCH v2 4/4] test/ring: add check to validate the dequeued objects
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:47:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <VE1PR08MB5677CC72A197E61B3AF93121C8550@VE1PR08MB5677.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DBAPR08MB5814578375E8FE24D0679E2898540@DBAPR08MB5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Hi, Honnappa
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> 发送时间: 2020年8月27日 4:51
> 收件人: Feifei Wang <Feifei.Wang2@arm.com>; Konstantin Ananyev
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> 抄送: dev@dpdk.org; nd <nd@arm.com>; Feifei Wang
> <Feifei.Wang2@arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> 主题: RE: [PATCH v2 4/4] test/ring: add check to validate the dequeued objects
>
> Hi Feifei,
> Can you add this at the head of the series? It will help with proving that
> the test case fails and hence we need subsequent fixes.
Ok, I will adjust it to the first one of the series.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:14 AM
> > To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Konstantin
> > Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; nd <nd@arm.com>; Feifei Wang
> <Feifei.Wang2@arm.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] test/ring: add check to validate the dequeued
> > objects
> >
> > For the single element enqueue and dequeue in test_ring_basic_ex and
> > test_ring_with_exact_size, add check to validate the dequeued objects.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <feifei.wang2@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> > ---
> > app/test/test_ring.c | 145
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 109 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_ring.c b/app/test/test_ring.c index
> > 51bae0d48..a1ff73a05 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_ring.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_ring.c
> > @@ -791,15 +791,9 @@ test_ring_basic_ex(void)
> > int ret = -1;
> > unsigned int i, j;
> > struct rte_ring *rp = NULL;
> > - void *obj = NULL;
> > + void **src = NULL, **cur_src = NULL, **dst = NULL, **cur_dst = NULL;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < RTE_DIM(esize); i++) {
> > - obj = test_ring_calloc(RING_SIZE, esize[i]);
> > - if (obj == NULL) {
> > - printf("%s: failed to alloc memory\n", __func__);
> > - goto fail_test;
> > - }
> > -
> > rp = test_ring_create("test_ring_basic_ex", esize[i], RING_SIZE,
> > SOCKET_ID_ANY,
> > RING_F_SP_ENQ | RING_F_SC_DEQ);
> > @@ -808,6 +802,23 @@ test_ring_basic_ex(void)
> > goto fail_test;
> > }
> >
> > + /* alloc dummy object pointers */
> > + src = test_ring_calloc(RING_SIZE, esize[i]);
> > + if (src == NULL) {
> > + printf("%s: failed to alloc src memory\n", __func__);
> > + goto fail_test;
> > + }
> > + test_ring_mem_init(src, RING_SIZE, esize[i]);
> > + cur_src = src;
> > +
> > + /* alloc some room for copied objects */
> > + dst = test_ring_calloc(RING_SIZE, esize[i]);
> > + if (dst == NULL) {
> > + printf("%s: failed to alloc dst memory\n", __func__);
> > + goto fail_test;
> > + }
> > + cur_dst = dst;
> > +
> > if (rte_ring_lookup("test_ring_basic_ex") != rp) {
> > printf("%s: failed to find ring\n", __func__);
> > goto fail_test;
> > @@ -823,8 +834,9 @@ test_ring_basic_ex(void)
> > rte_ring_free_count(rp));
> >
> > for (j = 0; j < RING_SIZE - 1; j++) {
> > - test_ring_enqueue(rp, obj, esize[i], 1,
> > + test_ring_enqueue(rp, cur_src, esize[i], 1,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_SINGLE);
> > + cur_src = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_src, esize[i], 1);
> > }
> >
> > if (rte_ring_full(rp) != 1) {
> > @@ -834,8 +846,9 @@ test_ring_basic_ex(void)
> > }
> >
> > for (j = 0; j < RING_SIZE - 1; j++) {
> > - test_ring_dequeue(rp, obj, esize[i], 1,
> > + test_ring_dequeue(rp, cur_dst, esize[i], 1,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_SINGLE);
> > + cur_dst = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_dst, esize[i], 1);
> > }
> >
> > if (rte_ring_empty(rp) != 1) {
> > @@ -844,52 +857,88 @@ test_ring_basic_ex(void)
> > goto fail_test;
> > }
> >
> > + /* check data */
> > + if (memcmp(src, dst, RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_src, src))) {
> > + rte_hexdump(stdout, "src", src,
> > + RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_src, src));
> > + rte_hexdump(stdout, "dst", dst,
> > + RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst));
> > + printf("data after dequeue is not the same\n");
> > + goto fail_test;
> > + }
> > +
> > +
> > /* Following tests use the configured flags to decide
> > * SP/SC or MP/MC.
> > */
> > + /* reset dst */
> > + if (esize[i] == -1)
> > + memset(dst, 0, RING_SIZE * sizeof(void *));
> > + else
> > + memset(dst, 0, RING_SIZE * esize[i]);
> Can you convert the above into a function like 'test_ring_mem_reset'?
Ok, the new function of "test_ring_mem_reset"(memset) and "test_ring_mem_cmp"(memcmp) will be added in the next version.
>
> > +
> > + /* reset cur_src and cur_dst */
> > + cur_src = src;
> > + cur_dst = dst;
> > +
> > /* Covering the ring burst operation */
> > - ret = test_ring_enqueue(rp, obj, esize[i], 2,
> > + ret = test_ring_enqueue(rp, cur_src, esize[i], 2,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_BURST);
> > if (ret != 2) {
> > printf("%s: rte_ring_enqueue_burst fails\n", __func__);
> > goto fail_test;
> > }
> > + cur_src = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_src, esize[i], 2);
> >
> > - ret = test_ring_dequeue(rp, obj, esize[i], 2,
> > + ret = test_ring_dequeue(rp, cur_dst, esize[i], 2,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_BURST);
> > if (ret != 2) {
> > printf("%s: rte_ring_dequeue_burst fails\n", __func__);
> > goto fail_test;
> > }
> > + cur_dst = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_dst, esize[i], 2);
> >
> > /* Covering the ring bulk operation */
> > - ret = test_ring_enqueue(rp, obj, esize[i], 2,
> > + ret = test_ring_enqueue(rp, cur_src, esize[i], 2,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_BULK);
> > if (ret != 2) {
> > printf("%s: rte_ring_enqueue_bulk fails\n", __func__);
> > goto fail_test;
> > }
> > + cur_src = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_src, esize[i], 2);
> >
> > - ret = test_ring_dequeue(rp, obj, esize[i], 2,
> > + ret = test_ring_dequeue(rp, cur_dst, esize[i], 2,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_BULK);
> > if (ret != 2) {
> > printf("%s: rte_ring_dequeue_bulk fails\n", __func__);
> > goto fail_test;
> > }
> > + cur_dst = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_dst, esize[i], 2);
> > +
> > + /* check data */
> > + if (memcmp(src, dst, RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst))) {
> > + rte_hexdump(stdout, "src", src,
> > + RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_src, src));
> > + rte_hexdump(stdout, "dst", dst,
> > + RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst));
> > + printf("data after dequeue is not the same\n");
> > + goto fail_test;
> > + }
> >
> > rte_ring_free(rp);
> > - rte_free(obj);
> > + rte_free(src);
> > + rte_free(dst);
> > rp = NULL;
> > - obj = NULL;
> > + src = NULL;
> > + dst = NULL;
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> > fail_test:
> > rte_ring_free(rp);
> > - if (obj != NULL)
> > - rte_free(obj);
> > -
> > + rte_free(src);
> > + rte_free(dst);
> > return -1;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -900,8 +949,8 @@ static int
> > test_ring_with_exact_size(void)
> > {
> > struct rte_ring *std_r = NULL, *exact_sz_r = NULL;
> > - void *obj_orig;
> > - void *obj;
> > + void **src_orig = NULL, **dst_orig = NULL;
> > + void **src = NULL, **cur_src = NULL, **dst = NULL, **cur_dst = NULL;
> > const unsigned int ring_sz = 16;
> > unsigned int i, j;
> > int ret = -1;
> > @@ -911,14 +960,6 @@ test_ring_with_exact_size(void)
> > TEST_RING_IGNORE_API_TYPE,
> > esize[i]);
> >
> > - /* alloc object pointers. Allocate one extra object
> > - * and create an unaligned address.
> > - */
> > - obj_orig = test_ring_calloc(17, esize[i]);
> > - if (obj_orig == NULL)
> > - goto test_fail;
> > - obj = ((char *)obj_orig) + 1;
> > -
> > std_r = test_ring_create("std", esize[i], ring_sz,
> > rte_socket_id(),
> > RING_F_SP_ENQ | RING_F_SC_DEQ);
> > @@ -936,6 +977,22 @@ test_ring_with_exact_size(void)
> > goto test_fail;
> > }
> >
> > + /* alloc object pointers. Allocate one extra object
> > + * and create an unaligned address.
> > + */
> > + src_orig = test_ring_calloc(17, esize[i]);
> > + if (src_orig == NULL)
> > + goto test_fail;
> > + test_ring_mem_init(src_orig, 17, esize[i]);
> > + src = ((void **)src_orig) + 1;
> ^^^^^^ This does not create an unaligned address.
> You have to use the typecasting to 'char *' like in the original code.
So, if I understand it correctly, the original code is to translate one byte. And for the new version, we also should translate one byte rather than the size of a pointer.
>
> > + cur_src = src;
> > +
> > + dst_orig = test_ring_calloc(17, esize[i]);
> > + if (dst_orig == NULL)
> > + goto test_fail;
> > + dst = ((void **)dst_orig) + 1;
> Same here.
>
> > + cur_dst = dst;
> > +
> > /*
> > * Check that the exact size ring is bigger than the
> > * standard ring
> > @@ -952,33 +1009,36 @@ test_ring_with_exact_size(void)
> > * than the standard ring. (16 vs 15 elements)
> > */
> > for (j = 0; j < ring_sz - 1; j++) {
> > - test_ring_enqueue(std_r, obj, esize[i], 1,
> > + test_ring_enqueue(std_r, cur_src, esize[i], 1,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_SINGLE);
> > - test_ring_enqueue(exact_sz_r, obj, esize[i], 1,
> > + test_ring_enqueue(exact_sz_r, cur_src, esize[i], 1,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_SINGLE);
> > + cur_src = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_src, esize[i], 1);
> > }
> > - ret = test_ring_enqueue(std_r, obj, esize[i], 1,
> > + ret = test_ring_enqueue(std_r, cur_src, esize[i], 1,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_SINGLE);
> > if (ret != -ENOBUFS) {
> > printf("%s: error, unexpected successful enqueue\n",
> > __func__);
> > goto test_fail;
> > }
> > - ret = test_ring_enqueue(exact_sz_r, obj, esize[i], 1,
> > + ret = test_ring_enqueue(exact_sz_r, cur_src, esize[i], 1,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_SINGLE);
> > if (ret == -ENOBUFS) {
> > printf("%s: error, enqueue failed\n", __func__);
> > goto test_fail;
> > }
> > + cur_src = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_src, esize[i], 1);
> >
> > /* check that dequeue returns the expected number of
> elements */
> > - ret = test_ring_dequeue(exact_sz_r, obj, esize[i], ring_sz,
> > + ret = test_ring_dequeue(exact_sz_r, cur_dst, esize[i], ring_sz,
> > TEST_RING_THREAD_DEF |
> > TEST_RING_ELEM_BURST);
> > if (ret != (int)ring_sz) {
> > printf("%s: error, failed to dequeue expected nb of
> elements\n",
> > __func__);
> > goto test_fail;
> > }
> > + cur_dst = test_ring_inc_ptr(cur_dst, esize[i], ring_sz);
> >
> > /* check that the capacity function returns expected value */
> > if (rte_ring_get_capacity(exact_sz_r) != ring_sz) { @@ -987,10
> > +1047,22 @@ test_ring_with_exact_size(void)
> > goto test_fail;
> > }
> >
> > - rte_free(obj_orig);
> > + /* check data */
> > + if (memcmp(src, dst, RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst))) {
> > + rte_hexdump(stdout, "src", src,
> > + RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_src, src));
> > + rte_hexdump(stdout, "dst", dst,
> > + RTE_PTR_DIFF(cur_dst, dst));
> > + printf("data after dequeue is not the same\n");
> > + goto test_fail;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rte_free(src_orig);
> > + rte_free(dst_orig);
> > rte_ring_free(std_r);
> > rte_ring_free(exact_sz_r);
> > - obj_orig = NULL;
> > + src_orig = NULL;
> > + dst_orig = NULL;
> > std_r = NULL;
> > exact_sz_r = NULL;
> > }
> > @@ -998,7 +1070,8 @@ test_ring_with_exact_size(void)
> > return 0;
> >
> > test_fail:
> > - rte_free(obj_orig);
> > + rte_free(src_orig);
> > + rte_free(dst_orig);
> > rte_ring_free(std_r);
> > rte_ring_free(exact_sz_r);
> > return -1;
> > --
> > 2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-27 8:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-29 6:31 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/2] wrong pointer passed of ring Feifei Wang
2020-07-29 6:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] ring: fix the misdescription of the param Feifei Wang
2020-07-29 15:59 ` David Marchand
2020-07-29 16:24 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-07-29 19:34 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-07-30 10:16 ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2020-07-31 5:26 ` [dpdk-dev] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-07-29 6:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/2] test/ring: fix wrong param passed to the enqueue APIs Feifei Wang
2020-07-29 13:48 ` David Marchand
2020-07-29 14:16 ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2020-07-29 14:21 ` [dpdk-dev] " David Marchand
2020-07-29 15:03 ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2020-07-29 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] " Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-07-30 10:28 ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2020-07-31 6:25 ` Feifei Wang
2020-08-05 6:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] wrong pointer passed and add check Feifei Wang
2020-08-05 6:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] test/ring: fix wrong parameter passed to the enqueue APIs Feifei Wang
2020-08-05 6:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] test/ring: fix wrong size used in memcmp Feifei Wang
2020-08-26 20:51 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-08-27 9:05 ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2020-08-05 6:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] test/ring: fix the wrong number of enq/deq elements Feifei Wang
2020-08-26 20:51 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-08-27 8:54 ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2020-08-05 6:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] test/ring: add check to validate the dequeued objects Feifei Wang
2020-08-26 20:50 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-08-27 8:47 ` Feifei Wang [this message]
2020-09-11 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] fix wrong passed pointer and add check Feifei Wang
2020-09-11 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] test/ring: add check to validate dequeued objects Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 4:26 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-09-11 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/6] test/ring: fix wrong parameter passed to the enqueue APIs Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 4:28 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-09-11 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/6] test/ring: validate the return value of enq/deq elements Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 4:29 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-09-11 16:10 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] test/ring: fix wrong number " Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 4:31 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-09-11 16:10 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/6] test/ring: fix wrong size used in memcmp Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 4:37 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-09-14 9:20 ` David Marchand
2020-09-11 16:10 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] test/ring: improve the application of macro Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 14:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/7] fix wrong passed pointer and add check Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 14:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/7] test/ring: add check to validate dequeued objects Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 14:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/7] test/ring: fix wrong parameter passed to the enqueue APIs Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 14:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/7] test/ring: validate the return value of enq/deq elements Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 14:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/7] test/ring: fix wrong number " Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 14:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 5/7] test/ring: fix wrong size used in memcmp Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 14:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 6/7] test/ring: add new function to validate dequeue data Feifei Wang
2020-09-14 14:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 7/7] test/ring: improve the application of macro Feifei Wang
2020-09-15 6:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] fix wrong passed pointer and add check Feifei Wang
2020-09-15 6:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] test/ring: fix wrong parameter passed to the enqueue APIs Feifei Wang
2020-09-15 6:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] test/ring: fix wrong number of enq/deq elements Feifei Wang
2020-09-15 6:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] test/ring: fix wrong size used in memcmp Feifei Wang
2020-09-15 6:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] test/ring: add check to validate dequeued objects Feifei Wang
2020-09-15 6:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/7] test/ring: validate the return value of enq/deq elements Feifei Wang
2020-09-15 6:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/7] test/ring: add new function to validate dequeue data Feifei Wang
2020-09-15 6:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] test/ring: improve the application of macro Feifei Wang
2020-09-17 16:26 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-09-20 11:54 ` [dpdk-dev] 回复: " Feifei Wang
2020-09-20 11:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/7] Feifei Wang
2020-09-20 11:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/7] test/ring: fix wrong parameter passed to the enqueue APIs Feifei Wang
2020-09-20 11:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/7] test/ring: fix wrong number of enq/deq elements Feifei Wang
2020-09-20 11:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/7] test/ring: fix wrong size used in memcmp Feifei Wang
2020-09-20 11:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/7] test/ring: add check to validate dequeued objects Feifei Wang
2020-09-20 11:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 5/7] test/ring: validate the return value of enq/deq elements Feifei Wang
2020-09-20 11:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 6/7] test/ring: add new function to validate dequeue data Feifei Wang
2020-09-20 11:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 7/7] test/ring: improve the application of macro Feifei Wang
2020-09-20 15:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/7] Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-09-23 9:24 ` David Marchand
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=VE1PR08MB5677CC72A197E61B3AF93121C8550@VE1PR08MB5677.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
--to=feifei.wang2@arm.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=nd@arm.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).