DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates
@ 2020-10-23 23:42 Nicolas Chautru
  2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs validation Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (7 more replies)
  0 siblings, 8 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Chautru @ 2020-10-23 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev, akhil.goyal, trix; +Cc: david.marchand, Nicolas Chautru

v5: correcting typos again. Quite worrisome spelling disorder.
v4: rebased on main latest
v3: apologize again for typo and not double checking with check-git-log
v2: typos missed in commit messages
Serie updating and extending the app running the bbdev-test for the existing bbdev PMDs.


Nicolas Chautru (7):
  app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs validation
  app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters
  app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading
  app/bbdev: define wait for offload
  app/bbdev: skip bler ut when compression is used
  app/bbdev: reduce duration of throughput test
  app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full ring

 app/test-bbdev/main.h            |   1 +
 app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 193 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)

-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs validation
  2020-10-23 23:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates Nicolas Chautru
@ 2020-10-23 23:42 ` Nicolas Chautru
  2020-10-26 12:55   ` Tom Rix
  2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Chautru @ 2020-10-23 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev, akhil.goyal, trix; +Cc: david.marchand, Nicolas Chautru

Adding explicit different ut when testing for validation
or latency (early termination enabled or not).

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 | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
index 6e5535d..3554a77 100644
--- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
+++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
@@ -3999,12 +3999,14 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 	return i;
 }
 
+/* Test case for latency/validation for LDPC Decoder */
 static int
 latency_test_ldpc_dec(struct rte_mempool *mempool,
 		struct test_buffers *bufs, struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ref_op,
 		int vector_mask, uint16_t dev_id, uint16_t queue_id,
 		const uint16_t num_to_process, uint16_t burst_sz,
-		uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t *max_time)
+		uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t *max_time,
+		bool disable_et)
 {
 	int ret = TEST_SUCCESS;
 	uint16_t i, j, dequeued;
@@ -4026,7 +4028,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 				"rte_bbdev_dec_op_alloc_bulk() failed");
 
 		/* For latency tests we need to disable early termination */
-		if (check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
+		if (disable_et && check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
 				RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE))
 			ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags -=
 					RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE;
@@ -4248,7 +4250,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u", op_type);
 
 	printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
-	printf("== test: validation/latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op type: %s\n",
+	printf("== test: latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op type: %s\n",
 			info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process, op_type_str);
 
 	if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC)
@@ -4270,7 +4272,83 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 		iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
 				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params->vector_mask,
 				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
+				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time, &max_time,
+				true);
+	else
+		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
+					op_params->ref_enc_op,
+					ad->dev_id, queue_id,
+					num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
+					&min_time, &max_time);
+
+	if (iter <= 0)
+		return TEST_FAILED;
+
+	printf("Operation latency:\n"
+			"\tavg: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
+			"\tmin: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
+			"\tmax: %lg cycles, %lg us\n",
+			(double)total_time / (double)iter,
+			(double)(total_time * 1000000) / (double)iter /
+			(double)rte_get_tsc_hz(), (double)min_time,
+			(double)(min_time * 1000000) / (double)rte_get_tsc_hz(),
+			(double)max_time, (double)(max_time * 1000000) /
+			(double)rte_get_tsc_hz());
+
+	return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+static int
+validation_test(struct active_device *ad,
+		struct test_op_params *op_params)
+{
+	int iter;
+	uint16_t burst_sz = op_params->burst_sz;
+	const uint16_t num_to_process = op_params->num_to_process;
+	const enum rte_bbdev_op_type op_type = test_vector.op_type;
+	const uint16_t queue_id = ad->queue_ids[0];
+	struct test_buffers *bufs = NULL;
+	struct rte_bbdev_info info;
+	uint64_t total_time, min_time, max_time;
+	const char *op_type_str;
+
+	total_time = max_time = 0;
+	min_time = UINT64_MAX;
+
+	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS((burst_sz > MAX_BURST),
+			"BURST_SIZE should be <= %u", MAX_BURST);
+
+	rte_bbdev_info_get(ad->dev_id, &info);
+	bufs = &op_params->q_bufs[GET_SOCKET(info.socket_id)][queue_id];
+
+	op_type_str = rte_bbdev_op_type_str(op_type);
+	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u", op_type);
+
+	printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
+	printf("== test: validation\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op type: %s\n",
+			info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process, op_type_str);
+
+	if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC)
+		iter = latency_test_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
+				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params->vector_mask,
+				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
 				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time, &max_time);
+	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC)
+		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
+				op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id, queue_id,
+				num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
+				&min_time, &max_time);
+	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_ENC)
+		iter = latency_test_ldpc_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
+				op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id, queue_id,
+				num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
+				&min_time, &max_time);
+	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC)
+		iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
+				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params->vector_mask,
+				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
+				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time, &max_time,
+				false);
 	else
 		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
 					op_params->ref_enc_op,
@@ -4930,6 +5008,12 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 }
 
 static int
+validation_tc(void)
+{
+	return run_test_case(validation_test);
+}
+
+static int
 interrupt_tc(void)
 {
 	return run_test_case(throughput_test);
@@ -4960,7 +5044,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 	.setup = testsuite_setup,
 	.teardown = testsuite_teardown,
 	.unit_test_cases = {
-		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, latency_tc),
+		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, validation_tc),
 		TEST_CASES_END() /**< NULL terminate unit test array */
 	}
 };
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters
  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
@ 2020-10-23 23:42 ` Nicolas Chautru
  2020-10-26 13:05   ` Tom Rix
  2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Chautru @ 2020-10-23 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev, akhil.goyal, trix; +Cc: david.marchand, Nicolas Chautru

Adding explicit check in ut that the stats counters
have the expect values. Was missing for coverage.

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 | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
index 3554a77..b62848e 100644
--- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
+++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
@@ -4840,6 +4840,23 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 			(double)(time_st.deq_max_time * 1000000) /
 			rte_get_tsc_hz());
 
+	struct rte_bbdev_stats stats = {0};
+	get_bbdev_queue_stats(ad->dev_id, queue_id, &stats);
+	if (op_type != RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC) {
+		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueued_count != num_to_process,
+				"Mismatch in enqueue count %10"PRIu64" %d",
+				stats.enqueued_count, num_to_process);
+		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeued_count != num_to_process,
+				"Mismatch in dequeue count %10"PRIu64" %d",
+				stats.dequeued_count, num_to_process);
+	}
+	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueue_err_count != 0,
+			"Enqueue count Error %10"PRIu64"",
+			stats.enqueue_err_count);
+	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeue_err_count != 0,
+			"Dequeue count Error (%10"PRIu64"",
+			stats.dequeue_err_count);
+
 	return TEST_SUCCESS;
 #endif
 }
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading
  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
  2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters Nicolas Chautru
@ 2020-10-23 23:42 ` Nicolas Chautru
  2020-10-26 13:31   ` Tom Rix
  2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Chautru @ 2020-10-23 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev, akhil.goyal, trix; +Cc: david.marchand, Nicolas Chautru

Run preloading explicitly for unit tests. Load each code block
by reusing existing input op then restore for the actual test.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
---
 app/test-bbdev/main.h            |  1 +
 app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/main.h b/app/test-bbdev/main.h
index fb3dec8..dc10a50 100644
--- a/app/test-bbdev/main.h
+++ b/app/test-bbdev/main.h
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
 #define TEST_SKIPPED    1
 
 #define MAX_BURST 512U
+#define MAX_OPS 1024U
 #define DEFAULT_BURST 32U
 #define DEFAULT_OPS 64U
 #define DEFAULT_ITER 6U
diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
index b62848e..f30cbdb 100644
--- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
+++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
@@ -2513,20 +2513,20 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 		bool preload)
 {
 	uint16_t j;
-	int ret;
-	uint32_t harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * 1024;
-	struct rte_bbdev_op_data save_hc_in, save_hc_out;
-	struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ops_deq[MAX_BURST];
+	int deq;
+	uint32_t harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * MAX_OPS;
+	struct rte_bbdev_op_data save_hc_in[MAX_OPS], save_hc_out[MAX_OPS];
+	struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ops_deq[MAX_OPS];
 	uint32_t flags = ops[0]->ldpc_dec.op_flags;
 	bool mem_in = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_IN_ENABLE;
 	bool hc_in = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HQ_COMBINE_IN_ENABLE;
 	bool mem_out = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_OUT_ENABLE;
 	bool hc_out = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HQ_COMBINE_OUT_ENABLE;
 	bool h_comp = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HARQ_6BIT_COMPRESSION;
-	for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
-		if ((mem_in || hc_in) && preload) {
-			save_hc_in = ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input;
-			save_hc_out = ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output;
+	if ((mem_in || hc_in) && preload) {
+		for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
+			save_hc_in[j] = ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input;
+			save_hc_out[j] = ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output;
 			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.op_flags =
 				RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_LOOPBACK +
 				RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_OUT_ENABLE;
@@ -2536,16 +2536,23 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.offset =
 					harq_offset;
 			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input.offset = 0;
-			rte_bbdev_enqueue_ldpc_dec_ops(dev_id, queue_id,
-					&ops[j], 1);
-			ret = 0;
-			while (ret == 0)
-				ret = rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_dec_ops(
-					dev_id, queue_id, &ops_deq[j], 1);
+			harq_offset += HARQ_INCR;
+		}
+		rte_bbdev_enqueue_ldpc_dec_ops(dev_id, queue_id, &ops[0], n);
+		deq = 0;
+		while (deq != n)
+			deq += rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_dec_ops(
+					dev_id, queue_id, &ops_deq[deq],
+					n - deq);
+		/* Restore the operations */
+		for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
 			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.op_flags = flags;
-			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input = save_hc_in;
-			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output = save_hc_out;
+			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input = save_hc_in[j];
+			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output = save_hc_out[j];
 		}
+	}
+	harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * MAX_OPS;
+	for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
 		/* Adjust HARQ offset when we reach external DDR */
 		if (mem_in || hc_in)
 			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input.offset
@@ -3231,11 +3238,9 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 				mbuf_reset(
 				ops_enq[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.data);
 		}
-		if (extDdr) {
-			bool preload = i == (TEST_REPETITIONS - 1);
+		if (extDdr)
 			preload_harq_ddr(tp->dev_id, queue_id, ops_enq,
-					num_ops, preload);
-		}
+					num_ops, true);
 		start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
 
 		for (enq = 0, deq = 0; enq < num_ops;) {
@@ -3362,11 +3367,9 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 				mbuf_reset(
 				ops_enq[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.data);
 		}
-		if (extDdr) {
-			bool preload = i == (TEST_REPETITIONS - 1);
+		if (extDdr)
 			preload_harq_ddr(tp->dev_id, queue_id, ops_enq,
-					num_ops, preload);
-		}
+					num_ops, true);
 		start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
 
 		for (enq = 0, deq = 0; enq < num_ops;) {
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload
  2020-10-23 23:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading Nicolas Chautru
@ 2020-10-23 23:42 ` Nicolas Chautru
  2020-10-26 13:33   ` Tom Rix
  2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/7] app/bbdev: skip bler ut when compression is used Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Chautru @ 2020-10-23 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev, akhil.goyal, trix; +Cc: david.marchand, Nicolas Chautru

Replacing magic number for default wait time for hw
offload.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
---
 app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
index f30cbdb..39f06db 100644
--- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
+++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
 
 #define MAX_QUEUES RTE_MAX_LCORE
 #define TEST_REPETITIONS 1000
+#define WAIT_OFFLOAD_US 1000
 
 #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_BBDEV_FPGA_LTE_FEC
 #include <fpga_lte_fec.h>
@@ -4451,7 +4452,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
 
 		/* give time for device to process ops */
-		rte_delay_us(200);
+		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
 
 		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
 		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
@@ -4542,7 +4543,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
 
 		/* give time for device to process ops */
-		rte_delay_us(200);
+		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
 
 		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
 		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
@@ -4630,7 +4631,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
 
 		/* give time for device to process ops */
-		rte_delay_us(200);
+		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
 
 		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
 		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
@@ -4713,7 +4714,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
 
 		/* give time for device to process ops */
-		rte_delay_us(200);
+		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
 
 		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
 		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/7] app/bbdev: skip bler ut when compression is used
  2020-10-23 23:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload Nicolas Chautru
@ 2020-10-23 23:42 ` 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
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Chautru @ 2020-10-23 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev, akhil.goyal, trix; +Cc: david.marchand, Nicolas Chautru

bler test results are not valid when LLR compression
is used or for loopback scenarios. Skipping these.

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 | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
index 39f06db..a15ea69 100644
--- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
+++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
@@ -3719,7 +3719,11 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
 			RTE_ALIGN(sizeof(struct thread_params) * num_lcores,
 				RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE));
 
-	if (test_vector.op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC)
+	if ((test_vector.op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC) &&
+			!check_bit(test_vector.ldpc_dec.op_flags,
+			RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_LOOPBACK)
+			&& !check_bit(test_vector.ldpc_dec.op_flags,
+			RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_LLR_COMPRESSION))
 		bler_function = bler_pmd_lcore_ldpc_dec;
 	else
 		return TEST_SKIPPED;
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/7] app/bbdev: reduce duration of throughput test
  2020-10-23 23:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2020-10-23 23:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/7] app/bbdev: skip bler ut when compression is used Nicolas Chautru
@ 2020-10-23 23:43 ` 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
  2020-10-24  7:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates David Marchand
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Chautru @ 2020-10-23 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev, akhil.goyal, trix; +Cc: david.marchand, Nicolas Chautru

Reducing number of repetitions from 1000 to 100
to save time. Results are accurate enough with
100 loops.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
---
 app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
index a15ea69..b5dc536 100644
--- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
+++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
 #define GET_SOCKET(socket_id) (((socket_id) == SOCKET_ID_ANY) ? 0 : (socket_id))
 
 #define MAX_QUEUES RTE_MAX_LCORE
-#define TEST_REPETITIONS 1000
+#define TEST_REPETITIONS 100
 #define WAIT_OFFLOAD_US 1000
 
 #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_BBDEV_FPGA_LTE_FEC
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full ring
  2020-10-23 23:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2020-10-23 23:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/7] app/bbdev: reduce duration of throughput test Nicolas Chautru
@ 2020-10-23 23:43 ` Nicolas Chautru
  2020-10-26 13:55   ` Tom Rix
  2020-10-24  7:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates David Marchand
  7 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Chautru @ 2020-10-23 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev, akhil.goyal, trix; +Cc: david.marchand, Nicolas Chautru

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 */
 		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));
 
 		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,
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates
  2020-10-23 23:42 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates Nicolas Chautru
                   ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2020-10-23 23:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full ring Nicolas Chautru
@ 2020-10-24  7:47 ` David Marchand
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: David Marchand @ 2020-10-24  7:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Chautru; +Cc: dev, Akhil Goyal, Tom Rix

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 1:43 AM Nicolas Chautru
<nicolas.chautru@intel.com> wrote:
>
> v5: correcting typos again. Quite worrisome spelling disorder.
> v4: rebased on main latest

Don't forget to update superseded series in patchwork too.
Thanks.


-- 
David Marchand


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs validation
  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
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-26 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Chautru, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> Adding explicit different ut when testing for validation
> or latency (early termination enabled or not).
>
> 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 | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
Should update the copyright.
>  1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> index 6e5535d..3554a77 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> @@ -3999,12 +3999,14 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  	return i;
>  }
>  
> +/* Test case for latency/validation for LDPC Decoder */
>  static int
>  latency_test_ldpc_dec(struct rte_mempool *mempool,
>  		struct test_buffers *bufs, struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ref_op,
>  		int vector_mask, uint16_t dev_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>  		const uint16_t num_to_process, uint16_t burst_sz,
> -		uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t *max_time)
> +		uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t *max_time,
> +		bool disable_et)
>  {
>  	int ret = TEST_SUCCESS;
>  	uint16_t i, j, dequeued;
> @@ -4026,7 +4028,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  				"rte_bbdev_dec_op_alloc_bulk() failed");
>  
>  		/* For latency tests we need to disable early termination */
> -		if (check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
> +		if (disable_et && check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
>  				RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE))
>  			ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags -=
>  					RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE;
Bit clearing is usually done with &= ~()
> @@ -4248,7 +4250,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u", op_type);
>  
>  	printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
> -	printf("== test: validation/latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op type: %s\n",
> +	printf("== test: latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op type: %s\n",
>  			info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process, op_type_str);
>  
>  	if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC)
> @@ -4270,7 +4272,83 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  		iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
>  				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params->vector_mask,
>  				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
> +				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time, &max_time,
> +				true);
> +	else
> +		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> +					op_params->ref_enc_op,
> +					ad->dev_id, queue_id,
> +					num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
> +					&min_time, &max_time);

This is a repeat of RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC.

Do not need both.

If the point is to have a else and not fail when the op_type is unknown, then

remove the earlier all and comment the else something like

else /* RTE_BBDEC_OP_TURBO_ENC */

> +
> +	if (iter <= 0)
> +		return TEST_FAILED;
> +
> +	printf("Operation latency:\n"
> +			"\tavg: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
> +			"\tmin: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
> +			"\tmax: %lg cycles, %lg us\n",
> +			(double)total_time / (double)iter,
> +			(double)(total_time * 1000000) / (double)iter /
> +			(double)rte_get_tsc_hz(), (double)min_time,
> +			(double)(min_time * 1000000) / (double)rte_get_tsc_hz(),
> +			(double)max_time, (double)(max_time * 1000000) /
> +			(double)rte_get_tsc_hz());
Could remove a tab from the last 9 lines for better alignment with printf
> +
> +	return TEST_SUCCESS;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +validation_test(struct active_device *ad,
> +		struct test_op_params *op_params)
> +{
> +	int iter;
> +	uint16_t burst_sz = op_params->burst_sz;
> +	const uint16_t num_to_process = op_params->num_to_process;
> +	const enum rte_bbdev_op_type op_type = test_vector.op_type;
> +	const uint16_t queue_id = ad->queue_ids[0];
> +	struct test_buffers *bufs = NULL;
> +	struct rte_bbdev_info info;
> +	uint64_t total_time, min_time, max_time;
> +	const char *op_type_str;
> +
> +	total_time = max_time = 0;
> +	min_time = UINT64_MAX;
> +
> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS((burst_sz > MAX_BURST),
> +			"BURST_SIZE should be <= %u", MAX_BURST);
> +
> +	rte_bbdev_info_get(ad->dev_id, &info);
> +	bufs = &op_params->q_bufs[GET_SOCKET(info.socket_id)][queue_id];
> +
> +	op_type_str = rte_bbdev_op_type_str(op_type);
> +	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u", op_type);
> +
> +	printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
> +	printf("== test: validation\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op type: %s\n",
> +			info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process, op_type_str);
> +
> +	if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC)
> +		iter = latency_test_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
> +				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params->vector_mask,
> +				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
>  				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time, &max_time);
> +	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC)
> +		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> +				op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id, queue_id,
> +				num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
> +				&min_time, &max_time);
> +	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_ENC)
> +		iter = latency_test_ldpc_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> +				op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id, queue_id,
> +				num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
> +				&min_time, &max_time);
> +	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC)
> +		iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
> +				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params->vector_mask,
> +				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
> +				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time, &max_time,
> +				false);

This 'false' is the only change from f latency_test.

These should be refactored to a common function. Then use a #define or similar wrapper for calling with/without this flag.

Tom

>  	else
>  		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
>  					op_params->ref_enc_op,
> @@ -4930,6 +5008,12 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  }
>  
>  static int
> +validation_tc(void)
> +{
> +	return run_test_case(validation_test);
> +}
> +
> +static int
>  interrupt_tc(void)
>  {
>  	return run_test_case(throughput_test);
> @@ -4960,7 +5044,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  	.setup = testsuite_setup,
>  	.teardown = testsuite_teardown,
>  	.unit_test_cases = {
> -		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, latency_tc),
> +		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, validation_tc),
>  		TEST_CASES_END() /**< NULL terminate unit test array */
>  	}
>  };


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters
  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
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-26 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Chautru, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> Adding explicit check in ut that the stats counters
> have the expect values. Was missing for coverage.

missing from coverage

?

>
> 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 | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> index 3554a77..b62848e 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> @@ -4840,6 +4840,23 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  			(double)(time_st.deq_max_time * 1000000) /
>  			rte_get_tsc_hz());
>  
> +	struct rte_bbdev_stats stats = {0};
Other calls to get_bbdev_queue_stats do not initialize stats and likely should
> +	get_bbdev_queue_stats(ad->dev_id, queue_id, &stats);
Should check the return here.
> +	if (op_type != RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC) {

This logic seems off.

Do you mean to check only enc stats with an enc op ?

Similar for dec.

> +		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueued_count != num_to_process,
> +				"Mismatch in enqueue count %10"PRIu64" %d",
> +				stats.enqueued_count, num_to_process);
> +		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeued_count != num_to_process,
> +				"Mismatch in dequeue count %10"PRIu64" %d",
> +				stats.dequeued_count, num_to_process);
> +	}
> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueue_err_count != 0,
> +			"Enqueue count Error %10"PRIu64"",
> +			stats.enqueue_err_count);
> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeue_err_count != 0,
> +			"Dequeue count Error (%10"PRIu64"",
> +			stats.dequeue_err_count);
> +
>  	return TEST_SUCCESS;
>  #endif
>  }


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading
  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
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-26 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Chautru, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> Run preloading explicitly for unit tests. Load each code block
> by reusing existing input op then restore for the actual test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
> ---
>  app/test-bbdev/main.h            |  1 +
>  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/main.h b/app/test-bbdev/main.h
> index fb3dec8..dc10a50 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/main.h
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/main.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #define TEST_SKIPPED    1
>  
>  #define MAX_BURST 512U
> +#define MAX_OPS 1024U

This #define is not consistently used.

ex/ see retrieve_harq_ddr, the old 1024 is still being used.

>  #define DEFAULT_BURST 32U
>  #define DEFAULT_OPS 64U
>  #define DEFAULT_ITER 6U
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> index b62848e..f30cbdb 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> @@ -2513,20 +2513,20 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  		bool preload)
>  {
>  	uint16_t j;
> -	int ret;
> -	uint32_t harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * 1024;
> -	struct rte_bbdev_op_data save_hc_in, save_hc_out;
> -	struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ops_deq[MAX_BURST];
> +	int deq;
> +	uint32_t harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * MAX_OPS;
> +	struct rte_bbdev_op_data save_hc_in[MAX_OPS], save_hc_out[MAX_OPS];
> +	struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ops_deq[MAX_OPS];
>  	uint32_t flags = ops[0]->ldpc_dec.op_flags;
>  	bool mem_in = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_IN_ENABLE;
>  	bool hc_in = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HQ_COMBINE_IN_ENABLE;
>  	bool mem_out = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_OUT_ENABLE;
>  	bool hc_out = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HQ_COMBINE_OUT_ENABLE;
>  	bool h_comp = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HARQ_6BIT_COMPRESSION;
> -	for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
> -		if ((mem_in || hc_in) && preload) {
> -			save_hc_in = ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input;
> -			save_hc_out = ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output;
> +	if ((mem_in || hc_in) && preload) {
> +		for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
> +			save_hc_in[j] = ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input;
> +			save_hc_out[j] = ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output;
>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.op_flags =
>  				RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_LOOPBACK +
>  				RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_OUT_ENABLE;

flags are usually handled with bit operators, not arithmetic.

this seems to be a general issue.

> @@ -2536,16 +2536,23 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.offset =
>  					harq_offset;
>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input.offset = 0;
> -			rte_bbdev_enqueue_ldpc_dec_ops(dev_id, queue_id,
> -					&ops[j], 1);
> -			ret = 0;
> -			while (ret == 0)
> -				ret = rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_dec_ops(
> -					dev_id, queue_id, &ops_deq[j], 1);
> +			harq_offset += HARQ_INCR;
> +		}
> +		rte_bbdev_enqueue_ldpc_dec_ops(dev_id, queue_id, &ops[0], n);
Add check the return is 'n'
> +		deq = 0;
> +		while (deq != n)
> +			deq += rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_dec_ops(
> +					dev_id, queue_id, &ops_deq[deq],
> +					n - deq);

Add check the return >= 0

Tom

> +		/* Restore the operations */
> +		for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.op_flags = flags;
> -			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input = save_hc_in;
> -			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output = save_hc_out;
> +			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input = save_hc_in[j];
> +			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output = save_hc_out[j];
>  		}
> +	}
> +	harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * MAX_OPS;
> +	for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
>  		/* Adjust HARQ offset when we reach external DDR */
>  		if (mem_in || hc_in)
>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input.offset
> @@ -3231,11 +3238,9 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  				mbuf_reset(
>  				ops_enq[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.data);
>  		}
> -		if (extDdr) {
> -			bool preload = i == (TEST_REPETITIONS - 1);
> +		if (extDdr)
>  			preload_harq_ddr(tp->dev_id, queue_id, ops_enq,
> -					num_ops, preload);
> -		}
> +					num_ops, true);
>  		start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
>  
>  		for (enq = 0, deq = 0; enq < num_ops;) {
> @@ -3362,11 +3367,9 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  				mbuf_reset(
>  				ops_enq[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.data);
>  		}
> -		if (extDdr) {
> -			bool preload = i == (TEST_REPETITIONS - 1);
> +		if (extDdr)
>  			preload_harq_ddr(tp->dev_id, queue_id, ops_enq,
> -					num_ops, preload);
> -		}
> +					num_ops, true);
>  		start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
>  
>  		for (enq = 0, deq = 0; enq < num_ops;) {


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload
  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
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-26 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Chautru, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> Replacing magic number for default wait time for hw
> offload.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
> ---
>  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> index f30cbdb..39f06db 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>  
>  #define MAX_QUEUES RTE_MAX_LCORE
>  #define TEST_REPETITIONS 1000
> +#define WAIT_OFFLOAD_US 1000

Why wasn't 200 used ?

Tom

>  
>  #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_BBDEV_FPGA_LTE_FEC
>  #include <fpga_lte_fec.h>
> @@ -4451,7 +4452,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
>  
>  		/* give time for device to process ops */
> -		rte_delay_us(200);
> +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
>  
>  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
>  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> @@ -4542,7 +4543,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
>  
>  		/* give time for device to process ops */
> -		rte_delay_us(200);
> +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
>  
>  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
>  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> @@ -4630,7 +4631,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
>  
>  		/* give time for device to process ops */
> -		rte_delay_us(200);
> +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
>  
>  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
>  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> @@ -4713,7 +4714,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
>  
>  		/* give time for device to process ops */
> -		rte_delay_us(200);
> +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
>  
>  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
>  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/7] app/bbdev: skip bler ut when compression is used
  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
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-26 13:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Chautru, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> bler test results are not valid when LLR compression
> is used or for loopback scenarios. Skipping these.
>
> 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 | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> index 39f06db..a15ea69 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> @@ -3719,7 +3719,11 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>  			RTE_ALIGN(sizeof(struct thread_params) * num_lcores,
>  				RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE));
>  
> -	if (test_vector.op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC)
> +	if ((test_vector.op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC) &&
> +			!check_bit(test_vector.ldpc_dec.op_flags,
> +			RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_LOOPBACK)
> +			&& !check_bit(test_vector.ldpc_dec.op_flags,
> +			RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_LLR_COMPRESSION))
>  		bler_function = bler_pmd_lcore_ldpc_dec;
>  	else
>  		return TEST_SKIPPED;

Looks ok.

Reviewed-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/7] app/bbdev: reduce duration of throughput test
  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
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-26 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Chautru, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/23/20 4:43 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> Reducing number of repetitions from 1000 to 100
> to save time. Results are accurate enough with
> 100 loops.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
> ---
>  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> index a15ea69..b5dc536 100644
> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
>  #define GET_SOCKET(socket_id) (((socket_id) == SOCKET_ID_ANY) ? 0 : (socket_id))
>  
>  #define MAX_QUEUES RTE_MAX_LCORE
> -#define TEST_REPETITIONS 1000
> +#define TEST_REPETITIONS 100
>  #define WAIT_OFFLOAD_US 1000
>  
>  #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_BBDEV_FPGA_LTE_FEC

Looks ok

Reviewed-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full ring
  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
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-26 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nicolas Chautru, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


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
>  		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

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,


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload
  2020-10-26 13:33   ` Tom Rix
@ 2020-10-26 16:04     ` Chautru, Nicolas
  2020-10-28 20:24       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Chautru, Nicolas @ 2020-10-26 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Rix, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand

> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 6:33 AM
> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> akhil.goyal@nxp.com
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload
> 
> 
> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> > Replacing magic number for default wait time for hw offload.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 9 +++++----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > index f30cbdb..39f06db 100644
> > --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> >
> >  #define MAX_QUEUES RTE_MAX_LCORE
> >  #define TEST_REPETITIONS 1000
> > +#define WAIT_OFFLOAD_US 1000
> 
> Why wasn't 200 used ?
> 
> Tom

1ms is a more typical expectation for workload (TTI in numerology 0 for 5GNR and LTE). 


> 
> >
> >  #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_BBDEV_FPGA_LTE_FEC  #include
> <fpga_lte_fec.h>
> > @@ -4451,7 +4452,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
> active_device *ad,
> >  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
> >
> >  		/* give time for device to process ops */
> > -		rte_delay_us(200);
> > +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
> >
> >  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
> >  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise(); @@ -4542,7 +4543,7
> @@ typedef
> > int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> >  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
> >
> >  		/* give time for device to process ops */
> > -		rte_delay_us(200);
> > +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
> >
> >  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
> >  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise(); @@ -4630,7 +4631,7
> @@ typedef
> > int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> >  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
> >
> >  		/* give time for device to process ops */
> > -		rte_delay_us(200);
> > +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
> >
> >  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
> >  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise(); @@ -4713,7 +4714,7
> @@ typedef
> > int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> >  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
> >
> >  		/* give time for device to process ops */
> > -		rte_delay_us(200);
> > +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
> >
> >  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
> >  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full ring
  2020-10-26 13:55   ` Tom Rix
@ 2020-10-26 16:27     ` Chautru, Nicolas
  2020-10-28 20:28       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Chautru, Nicolas @ 2020-10-26 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Rix, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


> -----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. 

> 
> 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,


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters
  2020-10-26 13:05   ` Tom Rix
@ 2020-10-26 16:29     ` Chautru, Nicolas
  2020-10-28 20:31       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Chautru, Nicolas @ 2020-10-26 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Rix, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 6:06 AM
> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> akhil.goyal@nxp.com
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters
> 
> 
> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> > Adding explicit check in ut that the stats counters have the expect
> > values. Was missing for coverage.
> 
> missing from coverage
> 
> ?

This was causing code coverage gap. 

> 
> >
> > 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 | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > index 3554a77..b62848e 100644
> > --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > @@ -4840,6 +4840,23 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
> active_device *ad,
> >  			(double)(time_st.deq_max_time * 1000000) /
> >  			rte_get_tsc_hz());
> >
> > +	struct rte_bbdev_stats stats = {0};
> Other calls to get_bbdev_queue_stats do not initialize stats and likely should
> > +	get_bbdev_queue_stats(ad->dev_id, queue_id, &stats);
> Should check the return here.
> > +	if (op_type != RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC) {
> 
> This logic seems off.
> 
> Do you mean to check only enc stats with an enc op ?
> 
> Similar for dec.

No that is intentional. That check would not be relavent for the LDPC_DEC tests as this may run more operations for the sake of HARQ preloading/retrieve. 

> 
> > +		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueued_count !=
> num_to_process,
> > +				"Mismatch in enqueue count %10"PRIu64"
> %d",
> > +				stats.enqueued_count, num_to_process);
> > +		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeued_count !=
> num_to_process,
> > +				"Mismatch in dequeue count %10"PRIu64"
> %d",
> > +				stats.dequeued_count, num_to_process);
> > +	}
> > +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueue_err_count != 0,
> > +			"Enqueue count Error %10"PRIu64"",
> > +			stats.enqueue_err_count);
> > +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeue_err_count != 0,
> > +			"Dequeue count Error (%10"PRIu64"",
> > +			stats.dequeue_err_count);
> > +
> >  	return TEST_SUCCESS;
> >  #endif
> >  }


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading
  2020-10-26 13:31   ` Tom Rix
@ 2020-10-26 16:50     ` Chautru, Nicolas
  2020-10-28 20:33       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Chautru, Nicolas @ 2020-10-26 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Rix, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 6:32 AM
> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> akhil.goyal@nxp.com
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading
> 
> 
> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> > Run preloading explicitly for unit tests. Load each code block by
> > reusing existing input op then restore for the actual test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  app/test-bbdev/main.h            |  1 +
> >  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 51
> > +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/main.h b/app/test-bbdev/main.h index
> > fb3dec8..dc10a50 100644
> > --- a/app/test-bbdev/main.h
> > +++ b/app/test-bbdev/main.h
> > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> >  #define TEST_SKIPPED    1
> >
> >  #define MAX_BURST 512U
> > +#define MAX_OPS 1024U
> 
> This #define is not consistently used.
> 
> ex/ see retrieve_harq_ddr, the old 1024 is still being used.

Thanks I missed it. I will change this now.

> 
> >  #define DEFAULT_BURST 32U
> >  #define DEFAULT_OPS 64U
> >  #define DEFAULT_ITER 6U
> > diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > index b62848e..f30cbdb 100644
> > --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > @@ -2513,20 +2513,20 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
> active_device *ad,
> >  		bool preload)
> >  {
> >  	uint16_t j;
> > -	int ret;
> > -	uint32_t harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * 1024;
> > -	struct rte_bbdev_op_data save_hc_in, save_hc_out;
> > -	struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ops_deq[MAX_BURST];
> > +	int deq;
> > +	uint32_t harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR *
> MAX_OPS;
> > +	struct rte_bbdev_op_data save_hc_in[MAX_OPS],
> save_hc_out[MAX_OPS];
> > +	struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ops_deq[MAX_OPS];
> >  	uint32_t flags = ops[0]->ldpc_dec.op_flags;
> >  	bool mem_in = flags &
> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_IN_ENABLE;
> >  	bool hc_in = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HQ_COMBINE_IN_ENABLE;
> >  	bool mem_out = flags &
> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_OUT_ENABLE;
> >  	bool hc_out = flags &
> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HQ_COMBINE_OUT_ENABLE;
> >  	bool h_comp = flags &
> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HARQ_6BIT_COMPRESSION;
> > -	for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
> > -		if ((mem_in || hc_in) && preload) {
> > -			save_hc_in = ops[j]-
> >ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input;
> > -			save_hc_out = ops[j]-
> >ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output;
> > +	if ((mem_in || hc_in) && preload) {
> > +		for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
> > +			save_hc_in[j] = ops[j]-
> >ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input;
> > +			save_hc_out[j] = ops[j]-
> >ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output;
> >  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.op_flags =
> >
> 	RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_LOOPBACK +
> >
> 	RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_OUT_ENABLE;
> 
> flags are usually handled with bit operators, not arithmetic.
> 
> this seems to be a general issue.

This is keeping same coding style as rest of file. So keeping as is. 

> 
> > @@ -2536,16 +2536,23 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
> active_device *ad,
> >  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.offset =
> >  					harq_offset;
> >  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input.offset = 0;
> > -			rte_bbdev_enqueue_ldpc_dec_ops(dev_id, queue_id,
> > -					&ops[j], 1);
> > -			ret = 0;
> > -			while (ret == 0)
> > -				ret = rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_dec_ops(
> > -					dev_id, queue_id, &ops_deq[j], 1);
> > +			harq_offset += HARQ_INCR;
> > +		}
> > +		rte_bbdev_enqueue_ldpc_dec_ops(dev_id, queue_id,
> &ops[0], n);
> Add check the return is 'n'
> > +		deq = 0;
> > +		while (deq != n)
> > +			deq += rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_dec_ops(
> > +					dev_id, queue_id, &ops_deq[deq],
> > +					n - deq);
> 
> Add check the return >= 0

This cannot be <0.  uint16_t

> 
> Tom
> 
> > +		/* Restore the operations */
> > +		for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
> >  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.op_flags = flags;
> > -			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input =
> save_hc_in;
> > -			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output =
> save_hc_out;
> > +			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input =
> save_hc_in[j];
> > +			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output =
> save_hc_out[j];
> >  		}
> > +	}
> > +	harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * MAX_OPS;
> > +	for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
> >  		/* Adjust HARQ offset when we reach external DDR */
> >  		if (mem_in || hc_in)
> >  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input.offset
> > @@ -3231,11 +3238,9 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
> active_device *ad,
> >  				mbuf_reset(
> >  				ops_enq[j]-
> >ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.data);
> >  		}
> > -		if (extDdr) {
> > -			bool preload = i == (TEST_REPETITIONS - 1);
> > +		if (extDdr)
> >  			preload_harq_ddr(tp->dev_id, queue_id, ops_enq,
> > -					num_ops, preload);
> > -		}
> > +					num_ops, true);
> >  		start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> >
> >  		for (enq = 0, deq = 0; enq < num_ops;) { @@ -3362,11
> +3367,9 @@
> > typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> >  				mbuf_reset(
> >  				ops_enq[j]-
> >ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.data);
> >  		}
> > -		if (extDdr) {
> > -			bool preload = i == (TEST_REPETITIONS - 1);
> > +		if (extDdr)
> >  			preload_harq_ddr(tp->dev_id, queue_id, ops_enq,
> > -					num_ops, preload);
> > -		}
> > +					num_ops, true);
> >  		start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> >
> >  		for (enq = 0, deq = 0; enq < num_ops;) {


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs validation
  2020-10-26 12:55   ` Tom Rix
@ 2020-10-26 17:30     ` Chautru, Nicolas
  2020-10-28 20:37       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Chautru, Nicolas @ 2020-10-26 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Rix, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 5:56 AM
> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> akhil.goyal@nxp.com
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs
> validation
> 
> 
> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
> > Adding explicit different ut when testing for validation or latency
> > (early termination enabled or not).
> >
> > 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 | 92
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> Should update the copyright.
> >  1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > index 6e5535d..3554a77 100644
> > --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
> > @@ -3999,12 +3999,14 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
> active_device *ad,
> >  	return i;
> >  }
> >
> > +/* Test case for latency/validation for LDPC Decoder */
> >  static int
> >  latency_test_ldpc_dec(struct rte_mempool *mempool,
> >  		struct test_buffers *bufs, struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ref_op,
> >  		int vector_mask, uint16_t dev_id, uint16_t queue_id,
> >  		const uint16_t num_to_process, uint16_t burst_sz,
> > -		uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t
> *max_time)
> > +		uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t
> *max_time,
> > +		bool disable_et)
> >  {
> >  	int ret = TEST_SUCCESS;
> >  	uint16_t i, j, dequeued;
> > @@ -4026,7 +4028,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
> active_device *ad,
> >  				"rte_bbdev_dec_op_alloc_bulk() failed");
> >
> >  		/* For latency tests we need to disable early termination */
> > -		if (check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
> > +		if (disable_et && check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
> >
> 	RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE))
> >  			ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags -=
> >
> 	RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE;
> Bit clearing is usually done with &= ~()

This is the coding style for rest of the file hence sticking to it. 

> > @@ -4248,7 +4250,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
> active_device *ad,
> >  	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u",
> op_type);
> >
> >  	printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
> > -	printf("== test: validation/latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops:
> %u, op type: %s\n",
> > +	printf("== test: latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op
> > +type: %s\n",
> >  			info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process,
> op_type_str);
> >
> >  	if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC) @@ -4270,7 +4272,83
> @@
> > typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> >  		iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
> >  				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params-
> >vector_mask,
> >  				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
> > +				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time,
> &max_time,
> > +				true);
> > +	else
> > +		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> > +					op_params->ref_enc_op,
> > +					ad->dev_id, queue_id,
> > +					num_to_process, burst_sz,
> &total_time,
> > +					&min_time, &max_time);
> 
> This is a repeat of RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC.
> 
> Do not need both.

Fair enough. That is part of previous code but can simplify. 

> 
> If the point is to have a else and not fail when the op_type is unknown, then
> 
> remove the earlier all and comment the else something like
> 
> else /* RTE_BBDEC_OP_TURBO_ENC */
> 
> > +
> > +	if (iter <= 0)
> > +		return TEST_FAILED;
> > +
> > +	printf("Operation latency:\n"
> > +			"\tavg: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
> > +			"\tmin: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
> > +			"\tmax: %lg cycles, %lg us\n",
> > +			(double)total_time / (double)iter,
> > +			(double)(total_time * 1000000) / (double)iter /
> > +			(double)rte_get_tsc_hz(), (double)min_time,
> > +			(double)(min_time * 1000000) /
> (double)rte_get_tsc_hz(),
> > +			(double)max_time, (double)(max_time * 1000000) /
> > +			(double)rte_get_tsc_hz());
> Could remove a tab from the last 9 lines for better alignment with printf

I am unsure I follow. The recommended spacing is 2 tabs for continuation and unsure how the alignment would be better.
I typically only reduce to 1 tab only if I have to (80 chars limit becoming cumbersome with nested statements).

> > +
> > +	return TEST_SUCCESS;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +validation_test(struct active_device *ad,
> > +		struct test_op_params *op_params)
> > +{
> > +	int iter;
> > +	uint16_t burst_sz = op_params->burst_sz;
> > +	const uint16_t num_to_process = op_params->num_to_process;
> > +	const enum rte_bbdev_op_type op_type = test_vector.op_type;
> > +	const uint16_t queue_id = ad->queue_ids[0];
> > +	struct test_buffers *bufs = NULL;
> > +	struct rte_bbdev_info info;
> > +	uint64_t total_time, min_time, max_time;
> > +	const char *op_type_str;
> > +
> > +	total_time = max_time = 0;
> > +	min_time = UINT64_MAX;
> > +
> > +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS((burst_sz > MAX_BURST),
> > +			"BURST_SIZE should be <= %u", MAX_BURST);
> > +
> > +	rte_bbdev_info_get(ad->dev_id, &info);
> > +	bufs = &op_params-
> >q_bufs[GET_SOCKET(info.socket_id)][queue_id];
> > +
> > +	op_type_str = rte_bbdev_op_type_str(op_type);
> > +	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u",
> op_type);
> > +
> > +	printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
> > +	printf("== test: validation\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op
> type: %s\n",
> > +			info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process,
> op_type_str);
> > +
> > +	if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC)
> > +		iter = latency_test_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
> > +				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params-
> >vector_mask,
> > +				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
> >  				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time,
> &max_time);
> > +	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC)
> > +		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> > +				op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id,
> queue_id,
> > +				num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
> > +				&min_time, &max_time);
> > +	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_ENC)
> > +		iter = latency_test_ldpc_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> > +				op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id,
> queue_id,
> > +				num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
> > +				&min_time, &max_time);
> > +	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC)
> > +		iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
> > +				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params-
> >vector_mask,
> > +				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
> > +				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time,
> &max_time,
> > +				false);
> 
> This 'false' is the only change from f latency_test.
> 
> These should be refactored to a common function. Then use a #define or
> similar wrapper for calling with/without this flag.

Fair enough. Thanks. I will push an update later today. 

> 
> Tom
> 
> >  	else
> >  		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
> >  					op_params->ref_enc_op,
> > @@ -4930,6 +5008,12 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
> > active_device *ad,  }
> >
> >  static int
> > +validation_tc(void)
> > +{
> > +	return run_test_case(validation_test); }
> > +
> > +static int
> >  interrupt_tc(void)
> >  {
> >  	return run_test_case(throughput_test); @@ -4960,7 +5044,7 @@
> typedef
> > int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
> >  	.setup = testsuite_setup,
> >  	.teardown = testsuite_teardown,
> >  	.unit_test_cases = {
> > -		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, latency_tc),
> > +		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, validation_tc),
> >  		TEST_CASES_END() /**< NULL terminate unit test array */
> >  	}
> >  };


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload
  2020-10-26 16:04     ` Chautru, Nicolas
@ 2020-10-28 20:24       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-28 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chautru, Nicolas, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/26/20 9:04 AM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 6:33 AM
>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> akhil.goyal@nxp.com
>> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] app/bbdev: define wait for offload
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
>>> Replacing magic number for default wait time for hw offload.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
>>> Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 9 +++++----
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> index f30cbdb..39f06db 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>>>
>>>  #define MAX_QUEUES RTE_MAX_LCORE
>>>  #define TEST_REPETITIONS 1000
>>> +#define WAIT_OFFLOAD_US 1000
>> Why wasn't 200 used ?
>>
>> Tom
> 1ms is a more typical expectation for workload (TTI in numerology 0 for 5GNR and LTE). 

That's fine, i was only commenting because it changed.

Tom

>
>
>>>  #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_BBDEV_FPGA_LTE_FEC  #include
>> <fpga_lte_fec.h>
>>> @@ -4451,7 +4452,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>>  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
>>>
>>>  		/* give time for device to process ops */
>>> -		rte_delay_us(200);
>>> +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
>>>
>>>  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
>>>  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise(); @@ -4542,7 +4543,7
>> @@ typedef
>>> int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>>>  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
>>>
>>>  		/* give time for device to process ops */
>>> -		rte_delay_us(200);
>>> +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
>>>
>>>  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
>>>  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise(); @@ -4630,7 +4631,7
>> @@ typedef
>>> int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>>>  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
>>>
>>>  		/* give time for device to process ops */
>>> -		rte_delay_us(200);
>>> +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
>>>
>>>  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
>>>  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise(); @@ -4713,7 +4714,7
>> @@ typedef
>>> int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>>>  		time_st->enq_acc_total_time += stats.acc_offload_cycles;
>>>
>>>  		/* give time for device to process ops */
>>> -		rte_delay_us(200);
>>> +		rte_delay_us(WAIT_OFFLOAD_US);
>>>
>>>  		/* Start time meas for dequeue function offload latency */
>>>  		deq_start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/bbdev: update offload test to dequeue full ring
  2020-10-26 16:27     ` Chautru, Nicolas
@ 2020-10-28 20:28       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-28 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chautru, Nicolas, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


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,


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters
  2020-10-26 16:29     ` Chautru, Nicolas
@ 2020-10-28 20:31       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-28 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chautru, Nicolas, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/26/20 9:29 AM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 6:06 AM
>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> akhil.goyal@nxp.com
>> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] app/bbdev: add explicit check for counters
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
>>> Adding explicit check in ut that the stats counters have the expect
>>> values. Was missing for coverage.
>> missing from coverage
>>
>> ?
> This was causing code coverage gap. 

Add 'code ' to make the context better.

>
>>> 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 | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> index 3554a77..b62848e 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> @@ -4840,6 +4840,23 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>>  			(double)(time_st.deq_max_time * 1000000) /
>>>  			rte_get_tsc_hz());
>>>
>>> +	struct rte_bbdev_stats stats = {0};
>> Other calls to get_bbdev_queue_stats do not initialize stats and likely should
>>> +	get_bbdev_queue_stats(ad->dev_id, queue_id, &stats);
>> Should check the return here.
>>> +	if (op_type != RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC) {
>> This logic seems off.
>>
>> Do you mean to check only enc stats with an enc op ?
>>
>> Similar for dec.
> No that is intentional. That check would not be relavent for the LDPC_DEC tests as this may run more operations for the sake of HARQ preloading/retrieve. 
ok
>
>>> +		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueued_count !=
>> num_to_process,
>>> +				"Mismatch in enqueue count %10"PRIu64"
>> %d",
>>> +				stats.enqueued_count, num_to_process);
>>> +		TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeued_count !=
>> num_to_process,
>>> +				"Mismatch in dequeue count %10"PRIu64"
>> %d",
>>> +				stats.dequeued_count, num_to_process);
>>> +	}
>>> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.enqueue_err_count != 0,
>>> +			"Enqueue count Error %10"PRIu64"",
>>> +			stats.enqueue_err_count);
>>> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(stats.dequeue_err_count != 0,
>>> +			"Dequeue count Error (%10"PRIu64"",
>>> +			stats.dequeue_err_count);
>>> +
>>>  	return TEST_SUCCESS;
>>>  #endif
>>>  }


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading
  2020-10-26 16:50     ` Chautru, Nicolas
@ 2020-10-28 20:33       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-28 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chautru, Nicolas, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/26/20 9:50 AM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 6:32 AM
>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> akhil.goyal@nxp.com
>> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] app/bbdev: include explicit HARQ preloading
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
>>> Run preloading explicitly for unit tests. Load each code block by
>>> reusing existing input op then restore for the actual test.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
>>> Acked-by: Liu Tianjiao <tianjiao.liu@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  app/test-bbdev/main.h            |  1 +
>>>  app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 51
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/main.h b/app/test-bbdev/main.h index
>>> fb3dec8..dc10a50 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/main.h
>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/main.h
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>>  #define TEST_SKIPPED    1
>>>
>>>  #define MAX_BURST 512U
>>> +#define MAX_OPS 1024U
>> This #define is not consistently used.
>>
>> ex/ see retrieve_harq_ddr, the old 1024 is still being used.
> Thanks I missed it. I will change this now.
>
>>>  #define DEFAULT_BURST 32U
>>>  #define DEFAULT_OPS 64U
>>>  #define DEFAULT_ITER 6U
>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> index b62848e..f30cbdb 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> @@ -2513,20 +2513,20 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>>  		bool preload)
>>>  {
>>>  	uint16_t j;
>>> -	int ret;
>>> -	uint32_t harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * 1024;
>>> -	struct rte_bbdev_op_data save_hc_in, save_hc_out;
>>> -	struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ops_deq[MAX_BURST];
>>> +	int deq;
>>> +	uint32_t harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR *
>> MAX_OPS;
>>> +	struct rte_bbdev_op_data save_hc_in[MAX_OPS],
>> save_hc_out[MAX_OPS];
>>> +	struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ops_deq[MAX_OPS];
>>>  	uint32_t flags = ops[0]->ldpc_dec.op_flags;
>>>  	bool mem_in = flags &
>> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_IN_ENABLE;
>>>  	bool hc_in = flags & RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HQ_COMBINE_IN_ENABLE;
>>>  	bool mem_out = flags &
>> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_OUT_ENABLE;
>>>  	bool hc_out = flags &
>> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HQ_COMBINE_OUT_ENABLE;
>>>  	bool h_comp = flags &
>> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_HARQ_6BIT_COMPRESSION;
>>> -	for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
>>> -		if ((mem_in || hc_in) && preload) {
>>> -			save_hc_in = ops[j]-
>>> ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input;
>>> -			save_hc_out = ops[j]-
>>> ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output;
>>> +	if ((mem_in || hc_in) && preload) {
>>> +		for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
>>> +			save_hc_in[j] = ops[j]-
>>> ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input;
>>> +			save_hc_out[j] = ops[j]-
>>> ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output;
>>>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.op_flags =
>>>
>> 	RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_LOOPBACK +
>> 	RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_INTERNAL_HARQ_MEMORY_OUT_ENABLE;
>>
>> flags are usually handled with bit operators, not arithmetic.
>>
>> this seems to be a general issue.
> This is keeping same coding style as rest of file. So keeping as is. 
Ugh. Add to a cleanup list.
>
>>> @@ -2536,16 +2536,23 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.offset =
>>>  					harq_offset;
>>>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input.offset = 0;
>>> -			rte_bbdev_enqueue_ldpc_dec_ops(dev_id, queue_id,
>>> -					&ops[j], 1);
>>> -			ret = 0;
>>> -			while (ret == 0)
>>> -				ret = rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_dec_ops(
>>> -					dev_id, queue_id, &ops_deq[j], 1);
>>> +			harq_offset += HARQ_INCR;
>>> +		}
>>> +		rte_bbdev_enqueue_ldpc_dec_ops(dev_id, queue_id,
>> &ops[0], n);
>> Add check the return is 'n'
>>> +		deq = 0;
>>> +		while (deq != n)
>>> +			deq += rte_bbdev_dequeue_ldpc_dec_ops(
>>> +					dev_id, queue_id, &ops_deq[deq],
>>> +					n - deq);
>> Add check the return >= 0
> This cannot be <0.  uint16_t

ok

Tom

>
>> Tom
>>
>>> +		/* Restore the operations */
>>> +		for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
>>>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.op_flags = flags;
>>> -			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input =
>> save_hc_in;
>>> -			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output =
>> save_hc_out;
>>> +			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input =
>> save_hc_in[j];
>>> +			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output =
>> save_hc_out[j];
>>>  		}
>>> +	}
>>> +	harq_offset = (uint32_t) queue_id * HARQ_INCR * MAX_OPS;
>>> +	for (j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
>>>  		/* Adjust HARQ offset when we reach external DDR */
>>>  		if (mem_in || hc_in)
>>>  			ops[j]->ldpc_dec.harq_combined_input.offset
>>> @@ -3231,11 +3238,9 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>>  				mbuf_reset(
>>>  				ops_enq[j]-
>>> ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.data);
>>>  		}
>>> -		if (extDdr) {
>>> -			bool preload = i == (TEST_REPETITIONS - 1);
>>> +		if (extDdr)
>>>  			preload_harq_ddr(tp->dev_id, queue_id, ops_enq,
>>> -					num_ops, preload);
>>> -		}
>>> +					num_ops, true);
>>>  		start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
>>>
>>>  		for (enq = 0, deq = 0; enq < num_ops;) { @@ -3362,11
>> +3367,9 @@
>>> typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>>>  				mbuf_reset(
>>>  				ops_enq[j]-
>>> ldpc_dec.harq_combined_output.data);
>>>  		}
>>> -		if (extDdr) {
>>> -			bool preload = i == (TEST_REPETITIONS - 1);
>>> +		if (extDdr)
>>>  			preload_harq_ddr(tp->dev_id, queue_id, ops_enq,
>>> -					num_ops, preload);
>>> -		}
>>> +					num_ops, true);
>>>  		start_time = rte_rdtsc_precise();
>>>
>>>  		for (enq = 0, deq = 0; enq < num_ops;) {


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs validation
  2020-10-26 17:30     ` Chautru, Nicolas
@ 2020-10-28 20:37       ` Tom Rix
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rix @ 2020-10-28 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chautru, Nicolas, dev, akhil.goyal; +Cc: david.marchand


On 10/26/20 10:30 AM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 5:56 AM
>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> akhil.goyal@nxp.com
>> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs
>> validation
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
>>> Adding explicit different ut when testing for validation or latency
>>> (early termination enabled or not).
>>>
>>> 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 | 92
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> Should update the copyright.
>>>  1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> index 6e5535d..3554a77 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> @@ -3999,12 +3999,14 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>>  	return i;
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +/* Test case for latency/validation for LDPC Decoder */
>>>  static int
>>>  latency_test_ldpc_dec(struct rte_mempool *mempool,
>>>  		struct test_buffers *bufs, struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ref_op,
>>>  		int vector_mask, uint16_t dev_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>>>  		const uint16_t num_to_process, uint16_t burst_sz,
>>> -		uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t
>> *max_time)
>>> +		uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t
>> *max_time,
>>> +		bool disable_et)
>>>  {
>>>  	int ret = TEST_SUCCESS;
>>>  	uint16_t i, j, dequeued;
>>> @@ -4026,7 +4028,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>>  				"rte_bbdev_dec_op_alloc_bulk() failed");
>>>
>>>  		/* For latency tests we need to disable early termination */
>>> -		if (check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
>>> +		if (disable_et && check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
>>>
>> 	RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE))
>>>  			ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags -=
>>>
>> 	RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE;
>> Bit clearing is usually done with &= ~()
> This is the coding style for rest of the file hence sticking to it. 
>
>>> @@ -4248,7 +4250,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>>  	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u",
>> op_type);
>>>  	printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
>>> -	printf("== test: validation/latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops:
>> %u, op type: %s\n",
>>> +	printf("== test: latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op
>>> +type: %s\n",
>>>  			info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process,
>> op_type_str);
>>>  	if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC) @@ -4270,7 +4272,83
>> @@
>>> typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>>>  		iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>>  				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params-
>>> vector_mask,
>>>  				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
>>> +				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time,
>> &max_time,
>>> +				true);
>>> +	else
>>> +		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> +					op_params->ref_enc_op,
>>> +					ad->dev_id, queue_id,
>>> +					num_to_process, burst_sz,
>> &total_time,
>>> +					&min_time, &max_time);
>> This is a repeat of RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC.
>>
>> Do not need both.
> Fair enough. That is part of previous code but can simplify. 
>
>> If the point is to have a else and not fail when the op_type is unknown, then
>>
>> remove the earlier all and comment the else something like
>>
>> else /* RTE_BBDEC_OP_TURBO_ENC */
>>
>>> +
>>> +	if (iter <= 0)
>>> +		return TEST_FAILED;
>>> +
>>> +	printf("Operation latency:\n"
>>> +			"\tavg: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
>>> +			"\tmin: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
>>> +			"\tmax: %lg cycles, %lg us\n",
>>> +			(double)total_time / (double)iter,
>>> +			(double)(total_time * 1000000) / (double)iter /
>>> +			(double)rte_get_tsc_hz(), (double)min_time,
>>> +			(double)(min_time * 1000000) /
>> (double)rte_get_tsc_hz(),
>>> +			(double)max_time, (double)(max_time * 1000000) /
>>> +			(double)rte_get_tsc_hz());
>> Could remove a tab from the last 9 lines for better alignment with printf
> I am unsure I follow. The recommended spacing is 2 tabs for continuation and unsure how the alignment would be better.
> I typically only reduce to 1 tab only if I have to (80 chars limit becoming cumbersome with nested statements).

This is just an observation i don't want to get into the weeds with whitespace issues.


>
>>> +
>>> +	return TEST_SUCCESS;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int
>>> +validation_test(struct active_device *ad,
>>> +		struct test_op_params *op_params)
>>> +{
>>> +	int iter;
>>> +	uint16_t burst_sz = op_params->burst_sz;
>>> +	const uint16_t num_to_process = op_params->num_to_process;
>>> +	const enum rte_bbdev_op_type op_type = test_vector.op_type;
>>> +	const uint16_t queue_id = ad->queue_ids[0];
>>> +	struct test_buffers *bufs = NULL;
>>> +	struct rte_bbdev_info info;
>>> +	uint64_t total_time, min_time, max_time;
>>> +	const char *op_type_str;
>>> +
>>> +	total_time = max_time = 0;
>>> +	min_time = UINT64_MAX;
>>> +
>>> +	TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS((burst_sz > MAX_BURST),
>>> +			"BURST_SIZE should be <= %u", MAX_BURST);
>>> +
>>> +	rte_bbdev_info_get(ad->dev_id, &info);
>>> +	bufs = &op_params-
>>> q_bufs[GET_SOCKET(info.socket_id)][queue_id];
>>> +
>>> +	op_type_str = rte_bbdev_op_type_str(op_type);
>>> +	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u",
>> op_type);
>>> +
>>> +	printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
>>> +	printf("== test: validation\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op
>> type: %s\n",
>>> +			info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process,
>> op_type_str);
>>> +
>>> +	if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC)
>>> +		iter = latency_test_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> +				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params-
>>> vector_mask,
>>> +				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
>>>  				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time,
>> &max_time);
>>> +	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC)
>>> +		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> +				op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id,
>> queue_id,
>>> +				num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
>>> +				&min_time, &max_time);
>>> +	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_ENC)
>>> +		iter = latency_test_ldpc_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> +				op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id,
>> queue_id,
>>> +				num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
>>> +				&min_time, &max_time);
>>> +	else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC)
>>> +		iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> +				op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params-
>>> vector_mask,
>>> +				ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
>>> +				burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time,
>> &max_time,
>>> +				false);
>> This 'false' is the only change from f latency_test.
>>
>> These should be refactored to a common function. Then use a #define or
>> similar wrapper for calling with/without this flag.
> Fair enough. Thanks. I will push an update later today. 

Thanks.  This was the only serious thing in the patchset.

Tom

>
>> Tom
>>
>>>  	else
>>>  		iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>>  					op_params->ref_enc_op,
>>> @@ -4930,6 +5008,12 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>>> active_device *ad,  }
>>>
>>>  static int
>>> +validation_tc(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	return run_test_case(validation_test); }
>>> +
>>> +static int
>>>  interrupt_tc(void)
>>>  {
>>>  	return run_test_case(throughput_test); @@ -4960,7 +5044,7 @@
>> typedef
>>> int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>>>  	.setup = testsuite_setup,
>>>  	.teardown = testsuite_teardown,
>>>  	.unit_test_cases = {
>>> -		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, latency_tc),
>>> +		TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, validation_tc),
>>>  		TEST_CASES_END() /**< NULL terminate unit test array */
>>>  	}
>>>  };


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-10-28 20:37 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
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
2020-10-24  7:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] BBDEV test updates David Marchand

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