Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] [RFC] Testpmd RPC API

[Owen Hilyard <ohilyard@iol.unh.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9536 bytes --]

>
> If so, I think, gRPC service would be along with existing
> testpmd functions, like start_packet_forwarding().


It was my intention to re-use existing functions. I used the ACL tests as
an example because they are more self-contained then Testpmd, which made
creating the proof of concept much easier.

Also, We don't need to rewrite the existing testpmd, Instead, RPC service,
> we can add in existing app/test-pmd/
>

The reason that I split out the services is that there doesn't seem to be a
way to produce multiple binaries without re-writing that section of the
build system. I wanted to avoid the hard requirement of having a C++
compiler available in order to be able to use testpmd, since that may
affect what platforms Testpmd can run on and I want to avoid this being any
kind of breaking change. If we decide to go the route of putting it all in
a single application, we would need to conditionally enable the gRPC
service at build time. Meson's current lack of support for conditionally
detecting compilers causes issues here.

I think, DPDK has only one interactive test case which is testpmd,
>

Could you point me to that test case? Either invocation or source is ok. I
can't see anything that would lead me to assume use of testpmd in "meson
test --list". To my knowledge, all of the test cases that use testpmd are
in DTS. If there is a test that uses testpmd but is not part of DTS, I
think it would be a candidate for moving into DTS assuming it's not a unit
test.

How you are planning to do noninteractive test cases?


I'm not planning to make any change to unit testing, you can read more
about how testing is currently conducted here:
https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/07/05/dpdk-testing-approaches/

If there is a unit test that involves testpmd, there are two possibilities.
1. If we are making a separate application for Testpmd with the gRPC api,
then nothing changes except for possibly changing where some of the testpmd
source lives in order to enable code reuse between the two applications.
2. If gRPC is being added to Testpmd, then the unit test should still
function as it previously did if I do any necessary refactoring as
correctly.

I think, key should be leveraging existing test cases as much as possible
> and make easy for developers to add new test cases.


That is part of the reason why I want to be able to do this. Adding a new
test in DTS is very easy if the functionality needed already exists in
Testpmd. If the functionality does not exist, then adding the test becomes
difficult, due to the required modifications to the Testpmd lexer and
parser to accommodate the new command. My plan is to leave unit testing in
C, but help make it easier to expose C functions to Python for integration
testing. This gives us the best of both worlds in terms of access to DPDK
and the ability to use a high-level language to write the tests.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 2:07 AM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:19 PM Owen Hilyard <ohilyard@iol.unh.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> scheme is probably over-engineered
> >
> >
> > I tried my hardest to keep this as simple as possible. The requirements
> imposed by DTS being a distributed system in Python restricted what I could
> do a lot. Needing to be compatible with DPDK's license also got rid of a
> lot of options. Binding generators are made for simple projects, and DPDK
> is not a simple project. There were some other options related to choice in
> the RPC framework, but very few RPC protocols seem to work well with C and
> be usable from Python, which is why I ended up using C++ with gRPC. Most of
> the code in api_impl.cc is taken from /app/test-acl/main.c, and the new
> part is mostly the C++ class at the bottom. Overall, this proposal comes
> out to ~100 lines of new C++, 9 lines of C, 12 lines of gRPC Protobuf and
> 100 lines of Meson. gRPC may be able to do a lot more than I need it to for
> the proof of concept, but many of the features that are not used, like
> bi-directional streaming, become very useful in writing more complicated
> tests. Overall, this solution is probably more capable than we need it to
> be, but I think that those extra capabilities don't come at a very large
> cost.
>
>
> Now it is clear, I was carried away with the POC test application and
> I was not knowing existing DTS tests are based on python
>
> Is below a fair summary?
>
> 1) DPDK has interactive test cases and no interactive test cases.
>
> For The interactive test case like testpmd, I agree that we can enable
> RPC service via gRPC server in C++ as  and client in Python, and
> something along the lines of exposing the existing test-pmd command
> line function as service
> to avoid command line parsing and reuse the existing python test suite.
>
> If so, I think, gRPC service would be along with existing testpmd
> functions, like start_packet_forwarding(). Also, We don't need to
> rewrite the existing testpmd,
> Instead, RPC service, we can add in existing app/test-pmd/ and hook to
> existing core testpmd functions to bypass the command-line parsing in
> C and control from python client as needed as service.
>
> Also, I agree that pulling in gRPC C++ server boilerplate and hooking
> to C functions is a good idea as it is the best C-based RPC scheme
> available today.
>
> 2)I think, DPDK has only one interactive test case which is testpmd,
> Remaining test cases are non-interactive, non-interactive test cases
> can simply run over ssh with passwordless login. Right?
> Do we need gRPC for that? Will the following scheme suffice? If not,
> How you are planning to do noninteractive test cases?
> i.e
> a)Copy test to target
> b) result=`ssh username@IP /path/to/testapp/in/target`
>
> I think, key should be leveraging existing test cases as much as
> possible and make easy for developers to add new test cases.
>
>
> >>
> >> Now that, Test code is also part of DPDK.
> >
> >
> > DTS is pure python. I tried to use FFI to call directly into DPDK from
> Python and then use xmlrpc from the python standard library. As mentioned
> in the writeup, I couldn't find a binding generator that would properly
> handle DPDK's allocators, which made it so that anything passed to DPDK
> using python was allocated using the system malloc. I don't think it is
> wise to attempt to programmatically re-write the generated code to allow
> for custom allocators. The original reason for needing to have DTS and DPDK
> in the same repository was so that tests could be committed and run
> alongside the feature patch.
> >
> >> Interactive - Testpmd one, I believe, Feeding stdin programmatically
> would suffice to test all the combinations.
> >
> >
> > One of the issues this is trying to address is that human-readable
> strings are a poor way to pass complex information between two programs.
> DTS is a distributed system, and it can have up to 3 physical servers
> involved in any given test. This means that it's not stdin via a pipe, it's
> an entire SSH session. This adds a noticeable amount of overhead when
> trying to send and verify the result of sending 1,000+ packets, since the
> lack of structured output means each packet must be checked before the next
> can be sent. This might be solvable by adding a structured output mode to
> testpmd, but that would involve committing to writing output twice for
> every function in testpmd forever.
> >
> >> We need to add all test cases in this model and we need to maintain two
> sets of programs.(Traditional tests and gRPC model-based tests).
> >
> >
> > Assuming by traditional tests you mean the unit tests run by Meson, I
> would argue that we are already maintaining 2 kinds of tests. The unit
> tests, and the python-based DTS tests. My intention is to create a thin
> wrapper around DPDK that would be exposed via gRPC, like you see here, and
> use that as midware. Then, we would have two front-ends. Testpmd, which
> takes text and then calls midware as it does now, and the gRPC frontend,
> which parses messages from the RPC server and runs the midware. This would
> enable testpmd to still be used to sanity check a DPDK installation, but we
> would not need to continually expand Testpmd. The primary issue is that,
> right now, anything not included in Testpmd is not really testable by DTS.
> This includes portions of the RTE Flow API, which was part of my reason for
> proposing this. The RTE Flow API would, in my estimation, if fully
> implemented into Testpmd, probably add at least another 10,000 lines of
> code. As mentioned in my proposal, Testpmd already does more parsing and
> lexing than it does interaction with DPDK by line count. Also, since I am
> proposing making this a separate application, we would be able to gradually
> migrate the tests inside of DTS. This would have no effect on anything
> except for Testpmd, the new application and the addition of a flag to
> toggle the use of a C++ compiler.
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly what you mean by gRPC model-based tests. gRPC uses
> classes to model services, but for this usecase we are essentially using it
> to transfer function arguments across the internet and then pass the return
> value back. Any RPC framework would function similarly if I ignored the
> restrictions of which languages to use, and the choice is not important to
> how tests are conducted. Put another way, how you write a test for DTS will
> not change much if you are using this or testpmd, it's just how you
> transfer data and get it back that I want to change.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11088 bytes --]