Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] test/lpm: improve coverage on tbl8

[Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 2:52 AM
> To: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; nd <nd@arm.com>; jerinj@marvell.com;
> drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] test/lpm: improve coverage on tbl8
> 
> Hi Ruifeng,
> 
> Please find comment inlined. Apart from that looks good.
> 
> On 08/01/2021 08:21, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
> > Existing test cases create 256 tbl8 groups for testing. The number
> > covers only 8 bit next_hop/group field. Since the next_hop/group field
> > had been extended to 24-bits, creating more than 256 groups in tests
> > can improve the coverage.
> >
> > Coverage was not expanded to reach the max supported group number,
> > because it would take too much time to run for this fast-test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> > ---
> >   app/test/test_lpm.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
> >   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_lpm.c b/app/test/test_lpm.c index
> > 258b2f67c..ee6c4280b 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_lpm.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_lpm.c
> > @@ -993,7 +993,7 @@ test13(void)
> >   }
> >
> >   /*
> > - * Fore TBL8 extension exhaustion. Add 256 rules that require a tbl8
> extension.
> > + * For TBL8 extension exhaustion. Add 512 rules that require a tbl8
> extension.
> >    * No more tbl8 extensions will be allowed. Now add one more rule that
> required
> >    * a tbl8 extension and get fail.
> >    * */
> > @@ -1008,28 +1008,34 @@ test14(void)
> >   	struct rte_lpm_config config;
> >
> >   	config.max_rules = 256 * 32;
> > -	config.number_tbl8s = NUMBER_TBL8S;
> > +	config.number_tbl8s = 512;
> >   	config.flags = 0;
> > -	uint32_t ip, next_hop_add, next_hop_return;
> > +	uint32_t ip, next_hop_base, next_hop_return;
> >   	uint8_t depth;
> >   	int32_t status = 0;
> > +	xmm_t ipx4;
> > +	uint32_t hop[4];
> >
> >   	/* Add enough space for 256 rules for every depth */
> >   	lpm = rte_lpm_create(__func__, SOCKET_ID_ANY, &config);
> >   	TEST_LPM_ASSERT(lpm != NULL);
> >
> >   	depth = 32;
> > -	next_hop_add = 100;
> > +	next_hop_base = 100;
> >   	ip = RTE_IPV4(0, 0, 0, 0);
> >
> >   	/* Add 256 rules that require a tbl8 extension */
> > -	for (; ip <= RTE_IPV4(0, 0, 255, 0); ip += 256) {
> > -		status = rte_lpm_add(lpm, ip, depth, next_hop_add);
> > +	for (; ip <= RTE_IPV4(0, 1, 255, 0); ip += 256) {
> > +		status = rte_lpm_add(lpm, ip, depth, next_hop_base + ip);
> >   		TEST_LPM_ASSERT(status == 0);
> >
> >   		status = rte_lpm_lookup(lpm, ip, &next_hop_return);
> >   		TEST_LPM_ASSERT((status == 0) &&
> > -				(next_hop_return == next_hop_add));
> > +				(next_hop_return == next_hop_base + ip));
> > +
> > +		ipx4 = vect_set_epi32(ip + 3, ip + 2, ip + 1, ip);
> > +		rte_lpm_lookupx4(lpm, ipx4, hop, UINT32_MAX);
> > +		TEST_LPM_ASSERT(hop[0] == next_hop_base + ip);
> 
> I think it is worth to check all 4 returned next hops here.

Agree. I will send out v2.

> 
> >   	}
> >
> >   	/* All tbl8 extensions have been used above. Try to add one more
> > and @@ -1037,7 +1043,7 @@ test14(void)
> >   	ip = RTE_IPV4(1, 0, 0, 0);
> >   	depth = 32;
> >
> > -	status = rte_lpm_add(lpm, ip, depth, next_hop_add);
> > +	status = rte_lpm_add(lpm, ip, depth, next_hop_base + ip);
> >   	TEST_LPM_ASSERT(status < 0);
> >
> >   	rte_lpm_free(lpm);
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Vladimir