From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05051A046B for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:54:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B93B49E0; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:54:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f54.google.com (mail-vs1-f54.google.com [209.85.217.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3A337A2 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:54:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vs1-f54.google.com with SMTP id m8so4506535vsj.0 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:54:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e5quxd5Qa0DMMLm9p11lJOdOJzbD3O5ayMuhfLxQAhU=; b=PjZ8m8VD/OdF/Ya21sVbabdK5S+b3lqgtAC/9VPfayy2aZlEjU6YQYg5F1iEBnAUpn KkPXmAUFsDzS5l52Z2EEBMRacjrEuCABnogpt4f4XfpItOzackcC6mLr/5U9ti7o29s6 cOJNafAOI6IjBL090eSMwGWQNxj0JlVAYtRgt7QSsV+4SUMLwKGA5K0NcXEJNS9V9M/X 4R1a5nfF1vgoT3ymvlf0A9r/XmA+49To4r3Is8E8FV+8S9BDag2rrVez/Iwf3ng36FHG xnLoTEWTsUYJ4LdmvaxMxhfUVsB72Gp+DDgvIZinj2K8KBqDKrp48FsiNSwrlpUdN3ZQ El6A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUvEUuONw0nasZiLE7J3JotlXmEUffERTmacTxUXrnO2F3ZQDiZ 8GJcWIkaH1h7Xqw+Hg6klfRdQcedoxJkvUFEFw51gg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzhWgyIj8e078OJUdnGCnJlDSwZu8u16E5KFqqbD1DvyTu2o5ko4AcnD0HFIsTjyF2tu1/0aTYnSpCPWpnQ0zs= X-Received: by 2002:a67:2ec8:: with SMTP id u191mr7401028vsu.39.1561740879631; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:54:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190628034406.5399-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> <20190628034406.5399-2-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:54:28 +0200 Message-ID: To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: dev , "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" , nd , dpdk stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/2] test/rcu: address test case failure X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 6:37 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli < Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:44 AM Honnappa Nagarahalli < > honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote: > Test case for rte_rcu_qsbr_get_memsize is written specifically > for 128 threads. Do not use RTE_MAX_LCORE as it changes for > different configurations. > > Does it mean this test can only work on arm with 256 lcores? > How many cores does this test require? > [Honnappa] It tests the correctness of the calculation of the memory > required. So, it uses the hand calculated number to verify. The hand > calculated number is for 128 cores. So, it does not depend on the platform > as such. > > Ah ah, funny that the default RTE_MAX_LCORE for x86 is 128, and then I did > not see the test failing. > Then ok for this fix. > > Reviewed-by: David Marchand david.marchand@redhat.com>> > > > How about the followup patch: > > - TEST_RCU_QSBR_RETURN_IF_ERROR((sz != 8384 && sz != 16768), > - "Get Memsize for 128 threads"); > + TEST_RCU_QSBR_RETURN_IF_ERROR( > +#if RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE == 64 > + sz != 8384 > +#elif RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE == 128 > + sz != 16768 > +#endif > + , "Get Memsize for 128 threads"); > [Honnappa] Added this change to V2, but slightly differently > Yep saw it. Thanks. -- David Marchand