Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] eal: add rte control thread create API

[Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:12:18PM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:30 PM Tyler Retzlaff
> <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add rte_control_thread_create API as a replacement for
> > rte_ctrl_thread_create to allow deprecation of the use of platform
> > specific types in DPDK public API.
> >
> > Duplicate the rte_ctrl_thread_create test adapted to use
> > rte_control_thread create to keep both APIs under test until
> > rte_ctrl_thread_create is removed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> > Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Mattias Rönnblom <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
> > ---
> >  app/test/test_lcores.c             | 41 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  lib/eal/common/eal_common_thread.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  lib/eal/include/rte_thread.h       | 33 +++++++++++++++
> >  lib/eal/version.map                |  1 +
> >  4 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_lcores.c b/app/test/test_lcores.c
> > index 5b43aa5..9766f78 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_lcores.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_lcores.c
> > @@ -353,6 +353,18 @@ static void *ctrl_thread_loop(void *arg)
> >         return NULL;
> >  }
> >
> > +static uint32_t control_thread_loop(void *arg)
> > +{
> > +       struct thread_context *t = arg;
> > +
> > +       printf("Control thread running successfully\n");
> > +
> > +       /* Set the thread state to DONE */
> > +       t->state = Thread_DONE;
> > +
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int
> >  test_ctrl_thread(void)
> >  {
> > @@ -380,6 +392,32 @@ static void *ctrl_thread_loop(void *arg)
> >  }
> >
> >  static int
> > +test_control_thread(void)
> > +{
> > +       struct thread_context ctrl_thread_context;
> > +       struct thread_context *t;
> > +
> > +       /* Create one control thread */
> > +       t = &ctrl_thread_context;
> > +       t->state = Thread_INIT;
> > +       if (rte_control_thread_create(&t->id, "test_control_threads",
> > +                                       NULL, control_thread_loop, t) != 0)
> > +               return -1;
> > +
> > +       /* Wait till the control thread exits.
> > +        * This also acts as the barrier such that the memory operations
> > +        * in control thread are visible to this thread.
> > +        */
> > +       rte_thread_join(t->id, NULL);
> > +
> > +       /* Check if the control thread set the correct state */
> > +       if (t->state != Thread_DONE)
> > +               return -1;
> > +
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> >  test_lcores(void)
> >  {
> >         unsigned int eal_threads_count = 0;
> > @@ -409,6 +447,9 @@ static void *ctrl_thread_loop(void *arg)
> >         if (test_ctrl_thread() < 0)
> >                 return TEST_FAILED;
> >
> > +       if (test_control_thread() < 0)
> > +               return TEST_FAILED;
> > +
> >         return TEST_SUCCESS;
> >  }
> >
> 
> Afair, the "legacy" API test being in test_lcores.c is mainly a side
> effect of the API being defined in rte_lcore.h.
> 
> The new API is genuinely located in rte_thread.h and there is no
> consideration over lcores: control thread are just "specialised"
> rte_thread objects.
> I'd rather see this test in app/test/test_threads.c with other
> rte_thread API tests.

no problem, i wondered if i should retain the original location or not.
i'll move it to test_threads.c

i kind of wonder if the function should be named rte_thread_create_ctrl
or something now so that all the functions from rte_thread have a
consistent naming prefix?

let me know if this is desired. if it is i'll submit a new version
otherwise you can apply the series as is with your suggested test moved
to test_threads.c below.

> 
> I think something like below would be enough, wdyt?
> If you are fine with it and there is no other comment on this patch, I
> plan to do this change before applying.

no problem with this, sounds good.

> 
> 
> diff --git a/app/test/test_threads.c b/app/test/test_threads.c
> index e0f18e4329..cc0bb69190 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_threads.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_threads.c
> @@ -232,6 +232,31 @@ test_thread_attributes_priority(void)
>         return 0;
>  }
> 
> +static int
> +test_control_thread_create_join(void)
> +{
> +       rte_thread_t thread_id;
> +       rte_thread_t thread_main_id;
> +
> +       thread_id_ready = 0;
> +       RTE_TEST_ASSERT(rte_control_thread_create(&thread_id,
> "test_control_threads", NULL,
> +               thread_main, &thread_main_id) == 0,
> +               "Failed to create thread.");
> +
> +       while (__atomic_load_n(&thread_id_ready, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE) == 0)
> +               ;
> +
> +       RTE_TEST_ASSERT(rte_thread_equal(thread_id, thread_main_id) != 0,
> +               "Unexpected thread id.");
> +
> +       __atomic_store_n(&thread_id_ready, 2, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> +
> +       RTE_TEST_ASSERT(rte_thread_join(thread_id, NULL) == 0,
> +               "Failed to join thread.");
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static struct unit_test_suite threads_test_suite = {
>         .suite_name = "threads autotest",
>         .setup = NULL,
> @@ -243,6 +268,7 @@ static struct unit_test_suite threads_test_suite = {
>                 TEST_CASE(test_thread_priority),
>                 TEST_CASE(test_thread_attributes_affinity),
>                 TEST_CASE(test_thread_attributes_priority),
> +               TEST_CASE(test_control_thread_create_join),
>                 TEST_CASES_END()
>         }
>  };
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Marchand