From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B1F1B4D7 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:54:07 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Oct 2018 04:54:06 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,416,1534834800"; d="scan'208";a="99935956" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.107]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 23 Oct 2018 04:54:04 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:54:03 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:54:03 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, yipeng1.wang@intel.com, gavin.hu@arm.com, dharmik.thakkar@arm.com, nd@arm.com Message-ID: <20181023115403.GE18800@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1540268524-126673-1-git-send-email-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> <1540268524-126673-6-git-send-email-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1540268524-126673-6-git-send-email-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> Organization: Intel Research and Development Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/5] test/hash: read-write lock-free concurrency test X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:54:07 -0000 On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22:04PM -0500, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > From: Dharmik Thakkar > > Unit tests to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf > with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled. > Unit tests performed with readers running in parallel with writers. > > Tests include: > > - hash lookup on existing keys with: > - hash add causing NO key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > - hash lookup on existing keys likely to be on shift-path with: > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > - hash lookup on existing keys NOT likely to be on shift-path with: > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > - hash lookup on non-existing keys with: > - hash add causing NO key-shifts of existing keys in the table > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > - hash lookup on keys likely to be on shift-path with: > - multiple writers causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu > Reviewed-by: Yipeng Wang > --- Does this need to be done via a completely new test case? Given the number of unit tests for the hash table structure, I'm wondering if we can consolidate things a bit. Any thoughts? /Bruce