From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> To: "Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" <akhil.goyal@nxp.com> Cc: "david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full ring Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:28:48 -0700 Message-ID: <83454a78-8053-bfab-f93a-f1a163ffd392@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4451E6436B6D029EDF58775DF8190@BY5PR11MB4451.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> On 10/26/20 9:27 AM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> >> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 6:56 AM >> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; >> akhil.goyal@nxp.com >> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full >> ring >> >> >> On 10/23/20 4:43 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote: >>> update offload dequeue to retrieve the full ring to be agnostic of >>> implementation. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com> >>> Acked-by: Aidan Goddard <aidan.goddard@accelercomm.com> >>> Acked-by: Dave Burley <dave.burley@accelercomm.com> >>> --- >>> app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 16 ++++++++-------- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> index b5dc536..a6884c5 100644 >>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> @@ -4463,8 +4463,8 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct >> active_device *ad, >>> /* Dequeue one operation */ >> This comment and similar need to change, not doing just 1 anymore > We still just need one operation dequeued to be considered done. > >>> do { >>> deq += rte_bbdev_dequeue_dec_ops(dev_id, >> queue_id, >>> - &ops_deq[deq], 1); >>> - } while (unlikely(deq != 1)); >>> + &ops_deq[deq], enq); >>> + } while (unlikely(deq == 0)); >> This check looks wrong, should likely be (deq != enq) >> >> Similar below > No that is intentional. Not waiting for everything to be done but purely the first dequeue. If not this would be run multiple times. > The rest of ring is dequeued below. So is > 1 an error condition or ok? Maybe add a comment that it is really ok because the call logic is not setup for 1 but for enq Tom > >> Tom >> >>> deq_last_time = rte_rdtsc_precise() - deq_start_time; >>> time_st->deq_max_time = RTE_MAX(time_st- >>> deq_max_time, @@ -4554,8 >>> +4554,8 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad, >>> /* Dequeue one operation */ >>> do { >>> deq += rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_dec_ops(dev_id, >> queue_id, >>> - &ops_deq[deq], 1); >>> - } while (unlikely(deq != 1)); >>> + &ops_deq[deq], enq); >>> + } while (unlikely(deq == 0)); >>> >>> deq_last_time = rte_rdtsc_precise() - deq_start_time; >>> time_st->deq_max_time = RTE_MAX(time_st- >>> deq_max_time, @@ -4642,8 >>> +4642,8 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad, >>> /* Dequeue one operation */ >>> do { >>> deq += rte_bbdev_dequeue_enc_ops(dev_id, >> queue_id, >>> - &ops_deq[deq], 1); >>> - } while (unlikely(deq != 1)); >>> + &ops_deq[deq], enq); >>> + } while (unlikely(deq == 0)); >>> >>> deq_last_time = rte_rdtsc_precise() - deq_start_time; >>> time_st->deq_max_time = RTE_MAX(time_st- >>> deq_max_time, @@ -4725,8 >>> +4725,8 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad, >>> /* Dequeue one operation */ >>> do { >>> deq += rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_enc_ops(dev_id, >> queue_id, >>> - &ops_deq[deq], 1); >>> - } while (unlikely(deq != 1)); >>> + &ops_deq[deq], enq); >>> + } while (unlikely(deq == 0)); >>> >>> deq_last_time = rte_rdtsc_precise() - deq_start_time; >>> time_st->deq_max_time = RTE_MAX(time_st- >>> deq_max_time,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-28 20:29 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-10-23 23:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates Nicolas Chautru 2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs validation Nicolas Chautru 2020-10-26 12:55 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-26 17:30 ` Chautru, Nicolas 2020-10-28 20:37 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters Nicolas Chautru 2020-10-26 13:05 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-26 16:29 ` Chautru, Nicolas 2020-10-28 20:31 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading Nicolas Chautru 2020-10-26 13:31 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-26 16:50 ` Chautru, Nicolas 2020-10-28 20:33 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload Nicolas Chautru 2020-10-26 13:33 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-26 16:04 ` Chautru, Nicolas 2020-10-28 20:24 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/7] app/bbdev: skip bler ut when compression is used Nicolas Chautru 2020-10-26 13:35 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-23 23:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/7] app/bbdev: reduce duration of throughput test Nicolas Chautru 2020-10-26 13:39 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-23 23:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full ring Nicolas Chautru 2020-10-26 13:55 ` Tom Rix 2020-10-26 16:27 ` Chautru, Nicolas 2020-10-28 20:28 ` Tom Rix [this message] 2020-10-24 7:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates 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=83454a78-8053-bfab-f93a-f1a163ffd392@redhat.com \ --to=trix@redhat.com \ --cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \ --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \ --cc=dev@dpdk.org \ --cc=nicolas.chautru@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
DPDK patches and discussions This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \ dev@dpdk.org public-inbox-index dev Example config snippet for mirrors. Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git