DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Cc: nd@arm.com, thomas@monjalon.net, jerinj@marvell.com,
	hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, nipun.gupta@nxp.com,
	Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, gavin.hu@arm.com,
	i.maximets@samsung.com, chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	stable@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/3] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time
Date: Fri,  8 Mar 2019 15:37:30 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1552030651-145319-3-git-send-email-gavin.hu@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1552030651-145319-1-git-send-email-gavin.hu@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181220104246.5590-1-gavin.hu@arm.com>

Instead of getting timestamps per iteration, amortize its overhead
can help getting more precise benchmarking results.

Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Change-Id: I5460f585937f65772c2eabe9ebc3d23a682e8af2
Jira: ENTNET-1047
Signed-off-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Joyce Kong <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: ruifeng wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: honnappa nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
---
 app/test/test_spinlock.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/test/test_spinlock.c b/app/test/test_spinlock.c
index 6795195..6ac7495 100644
--- a/app/test/test_spinlock.c
+++ b/app/test/test_spinlock.c
@@ -96,16 +96,16 @@ test_spinlock_recursive_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
 }
 
 static rte_spinlock_t lk = RTE_SPINLOCK_INITIALIZER;
-static uint64_t lock_count[RTE_MAX_LCORE] = {0};
+static uint64_t time_count[RTE_MAX_LCORE] = {0};
 
-#define TIME_MS 100
+#define MAX_LOOP 10000
 
 static int
 load_loop_fn(void *func_param)
 {
 	uint64_t time_diff = 0, begin;
 	uint64_t hz = rte_get_timer_hz();
-	uint64_t lcount = 0;
+	volatile uint64_t lcount = 0;
 	const int use_lock = *(int*)func_param;
 	const unsigned lcore = rte_lcore_id();
 
@@ -114,15 +114,15 @@ load_loop_fn(void *func_param)
 		while (rte_atomic32_read(&synchro) == 0);
 
 	begin = rte_get_timer_cycles();
-	while (time_diff < hz * TIME_MS / 1000) {
+	while (lcount < MAX_LOOP) {
 		if (use_lock)
 			rte_spinlock_lock(&lk);
 		lcount++;
 		if (use_lock)
 			rte_spinlock_unlock(&lk);
-		time_diff = rte_get_timer_cycles() - begin;
 	}
-	lock_count[lcore] = lcount;
+	time_diff = rte_get_timer_cycles() - begin;
+	time_count[lcore] = time_diff * 1000000 / hz;
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -136,14 +136,16 @@ test_spinlock_perf(void)
 
 	printf("\nTest with no lock on single core...\n");
 	load_loop_fn(&lock);
-	printf("Core [%u] count = %"PRIu64"\n", lcore, lock_count[lcore]);
-	memset(lock_count, 0, sizeof(lock_count));
+	printf("Core [%u] Cost Time = %"PRIu64" us\n", lcore,
+						time_count[lcore]);
+	memset(time_count, 0, sizeof(time_count));
 
 	printf("\nTest with lock on single core...\n");
 	lock = 1;
 	load_loop_fn(&lock);
-	printf("Core [%u] count = %"PRIu64"\n", lcore, lock_count[lcore]);
-	memset(lock_count, 0, sizeof(lock_count));
+	printf("Core [%u] Cost Time = %"PRIu64" us\n", lcore,
+						time_count[lcore]);
+	memset(time_count, 0, sizeof(time_count));
 
 	printf("\nTest with lock on %u cores...\n", rte_lcore_count());
 
@@ -158,11 +160,12 @@ test_spinlock_perf(void)
 	rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();
 
 	RTE_LCORE_FOREACH(i) {
-		printf("Core [%u] count = %"PRIu64"\n", i, lock_count[i]);
-		total += lock_count[i];
+		printf("Core [%u] Cost Time = %"PRIu64" us\n", i,
+						time_count[i]);
+		total += time_count[i];
 	}
 
-	printf("Total count = %"PRIu64"\n", total);
+	printf("Total Cost Time = %"PRIu64" us\n", total);
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.7.4

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-03-08  7:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-20 10:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/5] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/5] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct spinlock benchmarking Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 2/5] test/spinlock: get timestamp more precisely Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/5] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 4/5] spinlock: move the implementation to arm specific file Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 12:47   ` David Marchand
2018-12-20 12:55     ` David Marchand
2018-12-20 14:40       ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2018-12-20 14:36     ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2018-12-20 15:09       ` David Marchand
2018-12-20 15:58         ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2018-12-20 15:59           ` David Marchand
2018-12-20 10:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 5/5] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/5] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/5] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] test/spinlock: get timestamp more precisely Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/5] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/5] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2018-12-20 17:42   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] eal: fix clang compilation error on x86 Gavin Hu
2019-01-15  7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/4] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements gavin hu
2019-01-15  7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] eal: fix clang compilation error on x86 gavin hu
2019-01-15  7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/4] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking gavin hu
2019-01-15  7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/4] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time gavin hu
2019-01-15  7:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins gavin hu
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/4] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements gavin hu
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/4] eal: fix clang compilation error on x86 gavin hu
2019-01-15 17:42   ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/4] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking gavin hu
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/4] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time gavin hu
2019-01-15 10:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/4] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins gavin hu
2019-03-08  7:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] generic spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2019-03-08  7:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/3] test/spinlock: dealy 1 us to create contention Gavin Hu
2019-03-08  7:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/3] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2019-03-08  7:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/3] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2019-03-08  7:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/3] generic spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2019-03-08  7:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/3] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking Gavin Hu
2019-03-08  7:37 ` Gavin Hu [this message]
2019-03-08  7:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 3/3] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2019-03-08  7:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/3] generic spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2019-03-11 12:21   ` Nipun Gupta
2019-03-15 12:21   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-03-15 12:21     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-03-28  7:47   ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-28  7:47     ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-03-08  7:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/3] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking Gavin Hu
2019-03-08  7:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/3] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time Gavin Hu
2019-03-08  7:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 3/3] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2019-03-12 14:53   ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-03-14  0:31     ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-03-14  0:31       ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-03-14  2:36       ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-03-14  2:36         ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-03-14 14:22   ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-03-14 14:22     ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran

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=1552030651-145319-3-git-send-email-gavin.hu@arm.com \
    --to=gavin.hu@arm.com \
    --cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
    --cc=i.maximets@samsung.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=nipun.gupta@nxp.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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).