From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633EE5A for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 20:55:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2019 11:55:48 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,297,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="139098302" Received: from orsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.132]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2019 11:55:47 -0700 Received: from orsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.11) by ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:55:47 -0700 Received: from orsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.204]) by ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.66]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:55:47 -0700 From: "Wang, Yipeng1" To: Dharmik Thakkar , "Gobriel, Sameh" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 2/2] test/hash: lock-free rw concurrency test ext bkt Thread-Index: AQHU40777i2KcbL6WEGdHQKYydDx5KYnr2BQ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:55:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20190320223513.31249-1-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> <20190325210838.2853-1-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> <20190325210838.2853-3-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20190325210838.2853-3-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNWZlYjc4NDQtZmU0My00Mjc3LTgwMjMtNmZhZWIyZGI4ZWE5IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoidEhLeVIwSmE0VGJhV1NXTmNqM1hcL2l3cmpXUkVlUURGaWRSKzlvcGZiaDBkaW01MkIwd0l1NEFPeFFTblZ5alIifQ== x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] test/hash: lock-free rw concurrency test ext bkt 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 18:55:59 -0000 A little bit improvement on commit-message maybe needed. >-----Original Message----- >From: Dharmik Thakkar [mailto:dharmik.thakkar@arm.com] >Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:09 PM >To: Wang, Yipeng1 ; Gobriel, Sameh ; Richardson, Bruce >; De Lara Guarch, Pablo >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Dharmik Thakkar >Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] test/hash: lock-free rw concurrency test ext bkt [Wang, Yipeng] *for* ext bucket > >Add unit test to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf. [Wang, Yipeng] for extendable bucket feature. >Test with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled. [Wang, Yipeng] It is tested with both lock-free enabled and disabled case. > >Test include: > >- hash lookup on keys in ext bkt, >hash delete causing key-shifts of keys from ext bkt to secondary bkt [Wang, Yipeng]=20 Two test scenarios right? A bit of formatting.. Tests include: - hash lookup on keys in ext bucket. - hash delete causing key-shifts of keys from ext bucket to secondary bucke= t. > >Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli >Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar >--- >+/* >+ * Test lookup perf: >+ * Reader(s) lookup keys present in the extendable bkt. >+ */ >+static int >+test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_extbkt(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, >+ int rwc_lf, int htm, int ext_bkt) >+{ >+ unsigned int n, m; >+ uint64_t i; >+ int use_jhash =3D 0; >+ uint8_t write_type; >+ uint8_t read_type =3D READ_PASS_KEY_SHIFTS_EXTBKT; >+ >+ rte_atomic64_init(&greads); >+ rte_atomic64_init(&gread_cycles); >+ >+ if (init_params(rwc_lf, use_jhash, htm, ext_bkt) !=3D 0) >+ goto err; >+ printf("\nTest: Hash add - key-shifts, read - hit (ext_bkt)\n"); >+ for (m =3D 0; m < 2; m++) { >+ if (m =3D=3D 1) { >+ printf("\n** With bulk-lookup **\n"); >+ read_type |=3D BULK_LOOKUP; >+ } >+ for (n =3D 0; n < NUM_TEST; n++) { >+ unsigned int tot_lcore =3D rte_lcore_count(); >+ if (tot_lcore < rwc_core_cnt[n] + 1) >+ goto finish; >+ >+ printf("\nNumber of readers: %u\n", rwc_core_cnt[n]); >+ >+ rte_atomic64_clear(&greads); >+ rte_atomic64_clear(&gread_cycles); >+ >+ rte_hash_reset(tbl_rwc_test_param.h); >+ write_type =3D WRITE_NO_KEY_SHIFT; >+ if (write_keys(write_type) < 0) >+ goto err; >+ write_type =3D WRITE_KEY_SHIFT; >+ if (write_keys(write_type) < 0) >+ goto err; >+ writer_done =3D 0; >+ for (i =3D 1; i <=3D rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++) >+ rte_eal_remote_launch(test_rwc_reader, >+ (void *)(uintptr_t)read_type, >+ enabled_core_ids[i]); >+ for (i =3D 0; i < tbl_rwc_test_param.count_keys_ks_extbkt; >+ i++) { >+ if (rte_hash_del_key(tbl_rwc_test_param.h, >+ tbl_rwc_test_param.keys_ks_extbkt + i) >+ < 0) { >+ printf("Delete Failed: %u\n", >+ tbl_rwc_test_param.keys_ks_extbkt[i]); >+ goto err; >+ } >+ } >+ writer_done =3D 1; >+ rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(); [Wang, Yipeng] Not requirement for this perf patch, but is it better to rea= d the shifted key again Just to verify the logic? If not difficult please add. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39352A0679 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 20:56:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE782B99; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 20:56:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633EE5A for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 20:55:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Apr 2019 11:55:48 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,297,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="139098302" Received: from orsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.132]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2019 11:55:47 -0700 Received: from orsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.11) by ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:55:47 -0700 Received: from orsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.204]) by ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.66]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:55:47 -0700 From: "Wang, Yipeng1" To: Dharmik Thakkar , "Gobriel, Sameh" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 2/2] test/hash: lock-free rw concurrency test ext bkt Thread-Index: AQHU40777i2KcbL6WEGdHQKYydDx5KYnr2BQ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:55:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20190320223513.31249-1-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> <20190325210838.2853-1-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> <20190325210838.2853-3-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20190325210838.2853-3-dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNWZlYjc4NDQtZmU0My00Mjc3LTgwMjMtNmZhZWIyZGI4ZWE5IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoidEhLeVIwSmE0VGJhV1NXTmNqM1hcL2l3cmpXUkVlUURGaWRSKzlvcGZiaDBkaW01MkIwd0l1NEFPeFFTblZ5alIifQ== x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] test/hash: lock-free rw concurrency test ext bkt 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" Message-ID: <20190401185547.NOBJV9aG-AzvIWbgs2AE6E-uk1UsLNKI3Tt9uyWHHUY@z> A little bit improvement on commit-message maybe needed. >-----Original Message----- >From: Dharmik Thakkar [mailto:dharmik.thakkar@arm.com] >Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:09 PM >To: Wang, Yipeng1 ; Gobriel, Sameh ; Richardson, Bruce >; De Lara Guarch, Pablo >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Dharmik Thakkar >Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] test/hash: lock-free rw concurrency test ext bkt [Wang, Yipeng] *for* ext bucket > >Add unit test to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf. [Wang, Yipeng] for extendable bucket feature. >Test with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled. [Wang, Yipeng] It is tested with both lock-free enabled and disabled case. > >Test include: > >- hash lookup on keys in ext bkt, >hash delete causing key-shifts of keys from ext bkt to secondary bkt [Wang, Yipeng]=20 Two test scenarios right? A bit of formatting.. Tests include: - hash lookup on keys in ext bucket. - hash delete causing key-shifts of keys from ext bucket to secondary bucke= t. > >Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli >Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar >--- >+/* >+ * Test lookup perf: >+ * Reader(s) lookup keys present in the extendable bkt. >+ */ >+static int >+test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_extbkt(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, >+ int rwc_lf, int htm, int ext_bkt) >+{ >+ unsigned int n, m; >+ uint64_t i; >+ int use_jhash =3D 0; >+ uint8_t write_type; >+ uint8_t read_type =3D READ_PASS_KEY_SHIFTS_EXTBKT; >+ >+ rte_atomic64_init(&greads); >+ rte_atomic64_init(&gread_cycles); >+ >+ if (init_params(rwc_lf, use_jhash, htm, ext_bkt) !=3D 0) >+ goto err; >+ printf("\nTest: Hash add - key-shifts, read - hit (ext_bkt)\n"); >+ for (m =3D 0; m < 2; m++) { >+ if (m =3D=3D 1) { >+ printf("\n** With bulk-lookup **\n"); >+ read_type |=3D BULK_LOOKUP; >+ } >+ for (n =3D 0; n < NUM_TEST; n++) { >+ unsigned int tot_lcore =3D rte_lcore_count(); >+ if (tot_lcore < rwc_core_cnt[n] + 1) >+ goto finish; >+ >+ printf("\nNumber of readers: %u\n", rwc_core_cnt[n]); >+ >+ rte_atomic64_clear(&greads); >+ rte_atomic64_clear(&gread_cycles); >+ >+ rte_hash_reset(tbl_rwc_test_param.h); >+ write_type =3D WRITE_NO_KEY_SHIFT; >+ if (write_keys(write_type) < 0) >+ goto err; >+ write_type =3D WRITE_KEY_SHIFT; >+ if (write_keys(write_type) < 0) >+ goto err; >+ writer_done =3D 0; >+ for (i =3D 1; i <=3D rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++) >+ rte_eal_remote_launch(test_rwc_reader, >+ (void *)(uintptr_t)read_type, >+ enabled_core_ids[i]); >+ for (i =3D 0; i < tbl_rwc_test_param.count_keys_ks_extbkt; >+ i++) { >+ if (rte_hash_del_key(tbl_rwc_test_param.h, >+ tbl_rwc_test_param.keys_ks_extbkt + i) >+ < 0) { >+ printf("Delete Failed: %u\n", >+ tbl_rwc_test_param.keys_ks_extbkt[i]); >+ goto err; >+ } >+ } >+ writer_done =3D 1; >+ rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(); [Wang, Yipeng] Not requirement for this perf patch, but is it better to rea= d the shifted key again Just to verify the logic? If not difficult please add.