From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3on0081.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.55.234.81]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CA06A87 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 05:44:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from zhigangTHINK (124.207.145.166) by DB4PR02MB0590.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.223.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.31.17; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 04:44:10 +0000 From: Tony Lu To: 'Neil Horman' References: <1418029178-25162-1-git-send-email-zlu@ezchip.com> <1418029178-25162-15-git-send-email-zlu@ezchip.com> <20141209150321.GC28871@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20141209150321.GC28871@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:43:36 +0800 Message-ID: <000901d014fd$106f85d0$314e9170$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdATwVbSTwWDT0v/Srewx5RpPnxsUgBOfQ0w Content-Language: zh-cn X-Originating-IP: [124.207.145.166] X-ClientProxiedBy: BLUPR11CA0051.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.141.30.19) To DB4PR02MB0590.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.223.149) X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR02MB0590; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601003); SRVR:DB4PR02MB0590; X-Forefront-PRVS: 0422860ED4 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(13464003)(199003)(377454003)(24454002)(51704005)(189002)(52604005)(40100003)(122386002)(84116002)(19580405001)(46102003)(89996001)(19580395003)(23726002)(46406003)(106356001)(87976001)(107046002)(120916001)(97736003)(2656002)(99396003)(105586002)(59696002)(92566001)(68736005)(50466002)(33716001)(77096005)(50986999)(76176999)(64706001)(86362001)(20776003)(66066001)(47776003)(33646002)(96836002)(110136001)(31966008)(101416001)(14726001)(61296003)(97756001)(42186005)(102836002)(50226001)(21056001)(77156002)(62966003)(4396001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR02MB0590; H:zhigangTHINK; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR02MB0590; X-OriginatorOrg: ezchip.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 14/15] app/test: turn off cpu flag checks for tile architecture X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 04:44:16 -0000 >-----Original Message----- >From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman >Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:03 PM >To: Zhigang Lu >Cc: dev@dpdk.org >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 14/15] app/test: turn off cpu flag checks for tile >architecture > >On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 04:59:37PM +0800, Zhigang Lu wrote: >> Tile processor doesn't have CPU flag hardware registers, so this patch >> turns off cpu flag checks for tile. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhigang Lu >> Signed-off-by: Cyril Chemparathy >> --- >> app/test/test_cpuflags.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/app/test/test_cpuflags.c b/app/test/test_cpuflags.c index >> 5aeba5d..da93af5 100644 >> --- a/app/test/test_cpuflags.c >> +++ b/app/test/test_cpuflags.c >> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ test_cpuflags(void) >> >> printf("Check for ICACHE_SNOOP:\t\t"); >> CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_ICACHE_SNOOP); >> -#else >> +#elif !defined(RTE_ARCH_TILE) >> printf("Check for SSE:\t\t"); >> CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_SSE); >> >Please stop this. It doesn't make sense for a library that supports multiple >arches, we need some way to generically test for flags that doesn't involve >forcing applications to do ton's of ifdeffing. Perhaps rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled >needs to do a flag table lookup based on the detected arch at run time, and >return the appropriate response. In the case of tile, it can just be an empty >table, so 0 is always returned. But making an application responsible for doing >arch checks is a guarantee to write non-portable applications > >Neil > Thanks for taking a look at this. This change just follows what PPC did in commit 9ae15538. The root cause is that the test_cpuflags.c explicitly tests X86-specific CPU flags, so we might need to revise this test case to make it architecture-independent. A alternative change to this test case is as follows. --- a/app/test/test_cpuflags.c +++ b/app/test/test_cpuflags.c @@ -77,81 +77,13 @@ cpu_flag_result(int result) static int test_cpuflags(void) { - int result; + int i, result; printf("\nChecking for flags from different registers...\n"); -#ifdef RTE_ARCH_PPC_64 - printf("Check for PPC64:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_PPC64); - - printf("Check for PPC32:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_PPC32); - - printf("Check for VSX:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_VSX); - - printf("Check for DFP:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_DFP); - - printf("Check for FPU:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_FPU); - - printf("Check for SMT:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_SMT); - - printf("Check for MMU:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_MMU); - - printf("Check for ALTIVEC:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_ALTIVEC); - - printf("Check for ARCH_2_06:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_ARCH_2_06); - - printf("Check for ARCH_2_07:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_ARCH_2_07); - - printf("Check for ICACHE_SNOOP:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_ICACHE_SNOOP); -#else - printf("Check for SSE:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_SSE); - - printf("Check for SSE2:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_SSE2); - - printf("Check for SSE3:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_SSE3); - - printf("Check for SSE4.1:\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_SSE4_1); - - printf("Check for SSE4.2:\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_SSE4_2); - - printf("Check for AVX:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_AVX); - - printf("Check for AVX2:\t\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_AVX2); - - printf("Check for TRBOBST:\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_TRBOBST); - - printf("Check for ENERGY_EFF:\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_ENERGY_EFF); - - printf("Check for LAHF_SAHF:\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_LAHF_SAHF); - - printf("Check for 1GB_PG:\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_1GB_PG); - - printf("Check for INVTSC:\t"); - CHECK_FOR_FLAG(RTE_CPUFLAG_INVTSC); - - -#endif + for (i = 0; i < RTE_CPUFLAG_NUMFLAGS; i++) { + printf("Check for %s:\t\t", cpu_feature_table[i].name); + CHECK_FOR_FLAG(i); + } Thanks -Zhigang