From: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Cc: thomas@monjalon.net, jerinj@marvell.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com,
bruce.richardson@intel.com, chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, stephen@networkplumber.org,
david.marchand@redhat.com, nd@arm.com,
Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] test/spinlock: amortize the cost of getting time
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 12:13:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181227041349.3058-5-gavin.hu@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181227041349.3058-1-gavin.hu@arm.com>
Instead of getting timestamps per iteration, amortize its overhead
can help getting more precise benchmarking results.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Joyce Kong <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>
---
test/test/test_spinlock.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/test/test_spinlock.c b/test/test/test_spinlock.c
index 648474833..e9839b979 100644
--- a/test/test/test_spinlock.c
+++ b/test/test/test_spinlock.c
@@ -96,9 +96,9 @@ 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)
@@ -114,15 +114,14 @@ load_loop_fn(void *func_param)
while (rte_atomic32_read(&synchro) == 0);
begin = rte_rdtsc_precise();
- 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_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
}
- lock_count[lcore] = lcount;
+ time_diff = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
+ time_count[lcore] = time_diff * 1000000 / hz;
return 0;
}
@@ -136,14 +135,16 @@ 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 +159,12 @@ 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;
}
--
2.11.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-27 4:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-27 4:13 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] spinlock optimization and test case enhancements Gavin Hu
2018-12-27 4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] eal: fix clang compilation error on x86 Gavin Hu
2018-12-27 6:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27 4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/6] test/spinlock: remove 1us delay for correct benchmarking Gavin Hu
2018-12-27 7:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27 4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/6] test/spinlock: get timestamp more precisely Gavin Hu
2018-12-27 7:27 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-01-03 18:22 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-12-27 4:13 ` Gavin Hu [this message]
2018-12-27 4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/6] spinlock: reimplement with atomic one-way barrier builtins Gavin Hu
2018-12-27 7:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27 9:02 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-01-03 20:35 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-01-11 13:52 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-01-14 5:54 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-01-14 7:39 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-01-14 17:08 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-01-14 7:57 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2018-12-27 4:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] spinlock: ticket based to improve fairness Gavin Hu
2018-12-27 6:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27 10:05 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2018-12-27 12:08 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-27 23:41 ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-12-28 4:39 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2018-12-28 10:04 ` Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
2019-01-03 18:35 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-01-03 19:53 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-01-04 7:06 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
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=20181227041349.3058-5-gavin.hu@arm.com \
--to=gavin.hu@arm.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.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).