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 23D2EA00E6 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:36:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181271C0BC; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:36:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr20088.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E5C1C08D for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:36:02 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-armh-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=lCFpc0ZTYb6cT+FIs6i99vht7k5aIwX2wRVA143Rj4g=; b=fbLzBA31R+1Up6ECB46KXgZxPXb6B8WB+mmoUXOyTWKT/8GWdFg4C6IOGLSGKP/oEt3myicIfqYE7o0vJLg8odxJX+zFjmsFoh6pGcaECDsdxtLRVD/hoFyAJHA/GUeAQmQ+PQkvgUXS7dFfX/GL61TG8A2nY6xrbrvkFMiGaQo= Received: from VE1PR08MB4640.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.255.27.75) by VE1PR08MB4959.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.255.158.84) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1965.17; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:36:01 +0000 Received: from VE1PR08MB4640.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8553:e059:25a2:d0ab]) by VE1PR08MB4640.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8553:e059:25a2:d0ab%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1965.017; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:36:01 +0000 From: "Phil Yang (Arm Technology China)" To: Honnappa Nagarahalli , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: "thomas@monjalon.net" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" , nd , nd , nd Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/3] test/mcslock: add mcs queued lock unit test Thread-Index: AQHVHG3D0yzbqSsQJ0q/1MgE4wP1HKaPqnMAgAVhMvA= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:36:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1559750328-22377-1-git-send-email-phil.yang@arm.com> <1559750328-22377-4-git-send-email-phil.yang@arm.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725801688E11F3@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ts-tracking-id: ced25fc7-10e6-4414-98d3-b66143420d12.1 x-checkrecipientchecked: true authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Phil.Yang@arm.com; x-originating-ip: [113.29.88.7] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e4b111c9-f066-467c-f12f-08d6edc1b97f x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(7168020)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VE1PR08MB4959; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VE1PR08MB4959: x-ld-processed: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d,ExtAddr nodisclaimer: True x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882; x-forefront-prvs: 0064B3273C x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(979002)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(6436002)(53936002)(186003)(229853002)(55016002)(9686003)(14454004)(5660300002)(76176011)(54906003)(55236004)(102836004)(6506007)(316002)(72206003)(53546011)(110136005)(7696005)(52536014)(26005)(486006)(14444005)(11346002)(446003)(476003)(25786009)(478600001)(256004)(66066001)(68736007)(71190400001)(71200400001)(73956011)(81166006)(81156014)(66946007)(76116006)(6116002)(3846002)(305945005)(66556008)(64756008)(2906002)(33656002)(99286004)(66446008)(6246003)(66476007)(86362001)(2501003)(74316002)(8936002)(4326008)(7736002)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VE1PR08MB4959; H:VE1PR08MB4640.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 5fNhrOPLeW2aOM2vqMRxgCb8eDT1M3kAOj4+l0JxlXLd+8xCnm37IgMpxkx5OMBGx5QVODxxrOES2w3r1jpvGS91yGgRMBRIsUIIZSjCZ+nEL7SXpiZhvl9tsR1XVID121weFe5OLVhAAmElPeYnKXsibrlGw1bsutj1I98AB4DmscSHcztvmxyDRZIMLTNYEjKynTPTvLL//GP032rTYX7JsRjEOEkLY5JlyVYpCqIw3cc0D7uuT/P2E4Tu+FL5r5NgIZ5kB7+8J34vDfPjuFi97QQhP/axU0LkDeY2cpKhBAiRE9QrgH6dZSvs4v5BwTzHTGV4S2CBOOC++pXOf4KRl7WlaGgJMH1vfY17SNTOcDekrsPrYPW1LlLpOZd4zuFwSsySUnuMQ3GIX77SH5GaDVAD1FVt33sd8sGb+1k= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: arm.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e4b111c9-f066-467c-f12f-08d6edc1b97f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Jun 2019 16:36:01.4385 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Phil.Yang@arm.com X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VE1PR08MB4959 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/3] test/mcslock: add mcs queued lock unit test 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" Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Honnappa Nagarahalli > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 1:27 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Phil Yang (Arm > Technology China) ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; jerinj@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; > Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) ; nd > ; nd > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/3] test/mcslock: add mcs queued lock > unit test >=20 > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Unit test and perf test for MCS queued lock. > > > > Perf test is important of course, but first I think we need more > > robust functional test to make sure that lock does work properly. > > At least something like ticketlock test but probably with bigger > > number of iterations. > > 10K seems quite small here. Yes. I agree. I think we should also consider the total time consuming of t= he test. As more cores are involved in the lock contention, more time is re= quired to complete the test.=20 > > In fact with this one we'll have 3 lock methods, I think it makes > > sense to have one united UT framework for them, so only actual > > lock/unlock would be different. +1. =20 Since the APIs of MCS lock is different with spinlock and ticket lock, so I= am wondering that what will this united UT framework look like? Will it be the same test case that integrates 3 sets of lock tests running = with different cmd line? > +1 >=20 > > Konstantin > > > > > >=20 > Thanks, Phil Yang