From: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>,
Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>, Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, nd@arm.com,
Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>,
stable@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] test/lpm: fix cycle calculation in rcu qsbr perf
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 10:36:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201029153634.10647-1-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> (raw)
Fix incorrect calculations for LPM adds, LPM deletes,
and average cycles in RCU QSBR perf tests
Fixes: eff30b59cc2e ("test/lpm: add RCU performance tests")
Cc: honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
---
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c | 43 ++++++++++++++--------------------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_lpm_perf.c b/app/test/test_lpm_perf.c
index c5a238b9d1e8..0a2d76a983c3 100644
--- a/app/test/test_lpm_perf.c
+++ b/app/test/test_lpm_perf.c
@@ -23,7 +23,6 @@ static struct rte_rcu_qsbr *rv;
static volatile uint8_t writer_done;
static volatile uint32_t thr_id;
static uint64_t gwrite_cycles;
-static uint64_t gwrites;
/* LPM APIs are not thread safe, use mutex to provide thread safety */
static pthread_mutex_t lpm_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
@@ -60,6 +59,8 @@ static uint32_t num_ldepth_route_entries;
#define NUM_ROUTE_ENTRIES num_route_entries
#define NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES num_ldepth_route_entries
+#define TOTAL_WRITES (RCU_ITERATIONS * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES)
+
enum {
IP_CLASS_A,
IP_CLASS_B,
@@ -432,7 +433,6 @@ test_lpm_rcu_qsbr_writer(void *arg)
uint8_t core_id = (uint8_t)((uintptr_t)arg);
uint32_t next_hop_add = 0xAA;
- RTE_SET_USED(arg);
/* 2 writer threads are used */
if (core_id % 2 == 0) {
si = 0;
@@ -472,9 +472,6 @@ test_lpm_rcu_qsbr_writer(void *arg)
total_cycles = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
__atomic_fetch_add(&gwrite_cycles, total_cycles, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
- __atomic_fetch_add(&gwrites,
- 2 * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES * RCU_ITERATIONS,
- __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
return 0;
}
@@ -528,7 +525,6 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf_multi_writer(void)
writer_done = 0;
__atomic_store_n(&gwrite_cycles, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
- __atomic_store_n(&gwrites, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
__atomic_store_n(&thr_id, 0, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
@@ -548,13 +544,10 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf_multi_writer(void)
if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
goto error;
- printf("Total LPM Adds: %d\n",
- 2 * ITERATIONS * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES);
- printf("Total LPM Deletes: %d\n",
- 2 * ITERATIONS * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES);
+ printf("Total LPM Adds: %d\n", TOTAL_WRITES);
+ printf("Total LPM Deletes: %d\n", TOTAL_WRITES);
printf("Average LPM Add/Del: %"PRIu64" cycles\n",
- __atomic_load_n(&gwrite_cycles, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) /
- __atomic_load_n(&gwrites, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
+ __atomic_load_n(&gwrite_cycles, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) / TOTAL_WRITES
);
/* Wait and check return value from reader threads */
@@ -581,7 +574,6 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf_multi_writer(void)
writer_done = 0;
__atomic_store_n(&gwrite_cycles, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
- __atomic_store_n(&gwrites, 0, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
__atomic_store_n(&thr_id, 0, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
/* Launch reader threads */
@@ -600,14 +592,11 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf_multi_writer(void)
if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
goto error;
- printf("Total LPM Adds: %d\n",
- 2 * ITERATIONS * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES);
- printf("Total LPM Deletes: %d\n",
- 2 * ITERATIONS * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES);
+ printf("Total LPM Adds: %d\n", TOTAL_WRITES);
+ printf("Total LPM Deletes: %d\n", TOTAL_WRITES);
printf("Average LPM Add/Del: %"PRIu64" cycles\n",
- __atomic_load_n(&gwrite_cycles, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) /
- __atomic_load_n(&gwrites, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
- );
+ __atomic_load_n(&gwrite_cycles, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
+ / TOTAL_WRITES);
writer_done = 1;
/* Wait and check return value from reader threads */
@@ -711,11 +700,10 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf(void)
}
total_cycles = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
- printf("Total LPM Adds: %d\n", ITERATIONS * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES);
- printf("Total LPM Deletes: %d\n",
- ITERATIONS * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES);
+ printf("Total LPM Adds: %d\n", TOTAL_WRITES);
+ printf("Total LPM Deletes: %d\n", TOTAL_WRITES);
printf("Average LPM Add/Del: %g cycles\n",
- (double)total_cycles / (NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES * ITERATIONS));
+ (double)total_cycles / TOTAL_WRITES);
writer_done = 1;
/* Wait and check return value from reader threads */
@@ -771,11 +759,10 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf(void)
}
total_cycles = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
- printf("Total LPM Adds: %d\n", ITERATIONS * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES);
- printf("Total LPM Deletes: %d\n",
- ITERATIONS * NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES);
+ printf("Total LPM Adds: %d\n", TOTAL_WRITES);
+ printf("Total LPM Deletes: %d\n", TOTAL_WRITES);
printf("Average LPM Add/Del: %g cycles\n",
- (double)total_cycles / (NUM_LDEPTH_ROUTE_ENTRIES * ITERATIONS));
+ (double)total_cycles / TOTAL_WRITES);
writer_done = 1;
/* Wait and check return value from reader threads */
--
2.17.1
next reply other threads:[~2020-10-29 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-29 15:36 Dharmik Thakkar [this message]
2020-10-29 15:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] test/lpm: return error on failure " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-10-29 15:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] test/lpm: remove error checking " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-10-29 15:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] test/lpm: avoid code duplication " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-02 17:17 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-11-02 22:11 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-02 10:08 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] test/lpm: fix cycle calculation " David Marchand
2020-11-02 15:11 ` Bruce Richardson
2020-11-02 16:58 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-02 17:21 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-11-02 17:33 ` Bruce Richardson
2020-11-02 23:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] test/lpm: fix rcu qsbr perf test Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-02 23:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] test/lpm: fix cycle calculation in rcu qsbr perf Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 1:30 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-11-02 23:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] test/lpm: return error on failure " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 1:28 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-11-03 4:42 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-02 23:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] test/lpm: remove error checking " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 1:21 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-11-03 4:56 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-02 23:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] test/lpm: avoid code duplication " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 4:21 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-11-03 4:33 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 5:32 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-11-03 14:03 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 14:51 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-11-03 18:01 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-11-03 5:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] test/lpm: fix rcu qsbr perf test Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 5:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] test/lpm: fix cycle calculation in rcu qsbr perf Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 5:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] test/lpm: return error on failure " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 5:21 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-11-03 5:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] test/lpm: remove error checking " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 5:22 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-11-03 5:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] test/lpm: avoid code duplication " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 22:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/4] test/lpm: fix rcu qsbr perf test Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 22:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] test/lpm: fix cycle calculation in rcu qsbr perf Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 22:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/4] test/lpm: return error on failure " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 22:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/4] test/lpm: remove error checking " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 22:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] test/lpm: avoid code duplication " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-03 22:35 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-11-04 15:46 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-11-04 16:49 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-04 18:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/4] test/lpm: fix rcu qsbr perf test Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-04 18:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/4] test/lpm: fix cycle calculation in rcu qsbr perf Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-04 19:34 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-11-04 18:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/4] test/lpm: return error on failure " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-04 19:35 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-11-04 18:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/4] test/lpm: remove error checking " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-04 19:35 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-11-04 18:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/4] test/lpm: avoid code duplication " Dharmik Thakkar
2020-11-04 19:35 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2020-11-05 15:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/4] test/lpm: fix rcu qsbr perf test 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=20201029153634.10647-1-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com \
--to=dharmik.thakkar@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gavin.hu@arm.com \
--cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=vladimir.medvedkin@intel.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).