After looking into it, the l3fwd-power tool does not have the capability to change queue numbers or mappings without restarting. Testpmd currently lacks the ability (as far as I know) to bind a queue to an lcore. Is this a feature that would be reasonable to add to testpmd or should I drop work on this test case? This is turning into quite a time sink and I'm beginning to think that it would be more beneficial to DTS if I focused on creating the Flow API test suite rather than trying to make marginal improvements to this test case. 

Owen Hilyard

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:58 AM Tu, Lijuan <lijuan.tu@intel.com> wrote:

Hi Owen,

 

Reduce the number of invocations is a good idea, and your design is more perfect for a common case. But we still need to consider the boundary, the minimum and the maximum queue number. I really suggest we might get a random number from the minimum, maximum, and normal queue number, if then invocation is reduced, besides boundary checking is covered. Definitely we will run test for a long time not only once.

 

thanks

 

From: dts <dts-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Owen Hilyard
Sent: 2020年9月3日 2:42
To: Ma, LihongX <lihongx.ma@intel.com>
Cc: dts@dpdk.org; Zhang, Yuwei1 <yuwei1.zhang@intel.com>; changqingx.wu@intel.com; Xiao, QimaiX <qimaix.xiao@intel.com>; Hunt, David <david.hunt@intel.com>; lylavoie@iol.unh.edu
Subject: Re: [dts] [PATCH] rx interrupt: Fixed test case

 

Hello

I'm able to see a material difference between what I've suggested and what the prior test case did. I was attempting to reduce the number of invocations of a pmd during the test, since those invocations are time consuming and, from what I measured, made up the majority of the runtime of the test. Is there a reason why all queues and port's can't be opened at the same time and then ignored until they are needed? The way I re-did the configs was designed to create all possible combinations of settings in the format that was originally there. Are all 3 invocations of the pmd needed or is it possible to merge those and throw out my other changes? Most of my changes were done because I was already planning on submitting a patch to remove the extra invocations and aren't as important. 

Thanks for your help

Owen

 

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:02 PM Ma, LihongX <lihongx.ma@intel.com> wrote:

Hi, Owen
I think the change of the plan is not make sense, the case ' PF interrupt pmd with different queue' is want to test the interrupt on different queue,
The original case will test the queue on min number, max number and normal number(between minimum and maximum), but your patch will only test one situation.


Regards,
Ma,lihong

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dts <dts-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Owen Hilyard
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 11:04 PM
> To: dts@dpdk.org
> Cc: Zhang, Yuwei1 <yuwei1.zhang@intel.com>; changqingx.wu@intel.com; Xiao,
> QimaiX <qimaix.xiao@intel.com>; Hunt, David <david.hunt@intel.com>;
> lylavoie@iol.unh.edu; Owen Hilyard <ohilyard@iol.unh.edu>
> Subject: [dts] [PATCH] rx interrupt: Fixed test case
>
> fixed test case issues with eal params
> removed extra instances of l3fwd-power
>
> Signed-off-by: Owen Hilyard <ohilyard@iol.unh.edu>
> ---
>  test_plans/interrupt_pmd_test_plan.rst | 58 +++++++++-----------
>  tests/TestSuite_interrupt_pmd.py       | 73 ++++++++++++++------------
>  2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/test_plans/interrupt_pmd_test_plan.rst
> b/test_plans/interrupt_pmd_test_plan.rst
> index cb8b2f1..1f8816d 100644
> --- a/test_plans/interrupt_pmd_test_plan.rst
> +++ b/test_plans/interrupt_pmd_test_plan.rst