* [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test case
@ 2017-03-01 9:25 xu,huilong
2017-03-01 13:30 ` Liu, Yong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: xu,huilong @ 2017-03-01 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dts; +Cc: xu,huilong
Signed-off-by: xu,huilong <huilongx.xu@intel.com>
---
| 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--git a/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py b/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
index 78ae34d..5ab8b6b 100644
--- a/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
+++ b/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ class TestPmdrssHash(TestCase):
else:
self.verify(False, "NIC Unsupported:%s" % str(self.nic))
ports = self.dut.get_ports(self.nic)
- self.verify(len(ports) >= 1, "Not enough ports available")
+ self.verify(len(ports) >= 2, "Not enough ports available")
def set_up(self):
"""
@@ -650,6 +650,39 @@ class TestPmdrssHash(TestCase):
self.send_packet_symmetric(itf, iptype)
self.dut.send_expect("quit", "# ", 30)
+ def test_dyanmic_rss_bond_config(self):
+ self.dut.send_expect("./%s/app/testpmd -c f -n 4 -- -i --txqflags=0" % self.target, "testpmd> ", 120)
+ out = self.dut.send_expect("create bonded device 3 0", "testpmd> ", 30)
+ bond_device_id = int(re.search("port \d+", out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip())
+ self.verify(bond_device_id > 1, "not enought port for bonded test")
+
+ self.dut.send_expect("add bonding slave 0 %d" % bond_device_id, "testpmd>", 30)
+ self.dut.send_expect("add bonding slave 1 %d" % bond_device_id, "testpmd>", 30)
+
+ out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 0", "testpmd>")
+
+ slave0_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+", out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
+ out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 1", "testpmd>")
+ slave1_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+", out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
+
+ self.verify(slave0_hash_function == slave1_hash_function, "default hash function not match")
+
+ new_hash_function = ""
+ for hash_function in ["toeplitz", "simple_xor"]:
+ if slave0_hash_function[-3:].lower() != hash_function[-3:]:
+ new_hash_function = hash_function
+
+ self.dut.send_expect("set_hash_global_config 0 %s ipv4-other enable" % new_hash_function, "testpmd>")
+
+ out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 0", "testpmd>")
+ slave0_new_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+", out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
+ out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 1", "testpmd>")
+ slave1_new_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+", out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
+ self.verify(slave0_new_hash_function == slave1_new_hash_function, "bond slave auto sync hash function failed")
+ self.verify(slave0_new_hash_function[-3:].lower() == new_hash_function[-3:], "changed slave hash function failed")
+
+ self.dut.send_expect("quit","# ", 30)
+
def tear_down(self):
"""
--
1.9.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test case
2017-03-01 9:25 [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test case xu,huilong
@ 2017-03-01 13:30 ` Liu, Yong
2017-03-02 8:14 ` Xu, HuilongX
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Liu, Yong @ 2017-03-01 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xu, HuilongX, dts; +Cc: Xu, HuilongX
Hi Huilong,
Some comments below.
Thanks,
Marvin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dts [mailto:dts-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of xu,huilong
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:25 PM
> To: dts@dpdk.org
> Cc: Xu, HuilongX <huilongx.xu@intel.com>
> Subject: [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test
> case
>
> Signed-off-by: xu,huilong <huilongx.xu@intel.com>
> ---
> tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
> b/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
> index 78ae34d..5ab8b6b 100644
> --- a/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
> +++ b/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
> @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ class TestPmdrssHash(TestCase):
> else:
> self.verify(False, "NIC Unsupported:%s" % str(self.nic))
> ports = self.dut.get_ports(self.nic)
> - self.verify(len(ports) >= 1, "Not enough ports available")
> + self.verify(len(ports) >= 2, "Not enough ports available")
>
> def set_up(self):
> """
> @@ -650,6 +650,39 @@ class TestPmdrssHash(TestCase):
> self.send_packet_symmetric(itf, iptype)
>
> self.dut.send_expect("quit", "# ", 30)
Need blank line here.
> + def test_dyanmic_rss_bond_config(self):
Typo, should be dynamic.
> + self.dut.send_expect("./%s/app/testpmd -c f -n 4 -- -i --
> txqflags=0" % self.target, "testpmd> ", 120)
> + out = self.dut.send_expect("create bonded device 3 0", "testpmd>
> ", 30)
> + bond_device_id = int(re.search("port \d+", out).group().split("
> ")[-1].strip())
> + self.verify(bond_device_id > 1, "not enought port for bonded
> test")
This criteria has been validated in set_up_all function, no need here.
> +
> + self.dut.send_expect("add bonding slave 0 %d" % bond_device_id,
> "testpmd>", 30)
> + self.dut.send_expect("add bonding slave 1 %d" % bond_device_id,
> "testpmd>", 30)
> +
> + out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 0", "testpmd>")
> +
> + slave0_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+",
> out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
> + out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 1", "testpmd>")
> + slave1_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+",
> out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
> +
> + self.verify(slave0_hash_function == slave1_hash_function,
> "default hash function not match")
> +
> + new_hash_function = ""
> + for hash_function in ["toeplitz", "simple_xor"]:
> + if slave0_hash_function[-3:].lower() != hash_function[-3:]:
> + new_hash_function = hash_function
> +
> + self.dut.send_expect("set_hash_global_config 0 %s ipv4-other
> enable" % new_hash_function, "testpmd>")
> +
> + out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 0", "testpmd>")
> + slave0_new_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+",
> out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
> + out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 1", "testpmd>")
> + slave1_new_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+",
> out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
> + self.verify(slave0_new_hash_function == slave1_new_hash_function,
> "bond slave auto sync hash function failed")
> + self.verify(slave0_new_hash_function[-3:].lower() ==
> new_hash_function[-3:], "changed slave hash function failed")
> +
Not sure set and get is enough for validation, hash function not checked here.
> + self.dut.send_expect("quit","# ", 30)
> +
>
> def tear_down(self):
> """
> --
> 1.9.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test case
2017-03-02 8:14 ` Xu, HuilongX
@ 2017-03-02 8:12 ` Liu, Yong
2017-03-02 8:30 ` Xu, HuilongX
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Liu, Yong @ 2017-03-02 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xu, HuilongX, dts
Huilong,
My question is that whether only check output log from testpmd is enough
for function check? Should hash function be validated too?
On 03/02/2017 04:14 PM, Xu, HuilongX wrote:
>>> +
>> >Not sure set and get is enough for validation, hash function not checked here.
> This case only check update slave0 hash function, and slave1 will auto sync hash function.
> So there are two check point.
> First point: salv0 and slav1 hash function must same
> Second point: slav0 hash function update successful.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test case
2017-03-01 13:30 ` Liu, Yong
@ 2017-03-02 8:14 ` Xu, HuilongX
2017-03-02 8:12 ` Liu, Yong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Xu, HuilongX @ 2017-03-02 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Liu, Yong, dts
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Yong
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:31 PM
> To: Xu, HuilongX; dts@dpdk.org
> Cc: Xu, HuilongX
> Subject: RE: [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test
> case
>
> Hi Huilong,
>
> Some comments below.
>
> Thanks,
> Marvin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dts [mailto:dts-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of xu,huilong
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:25 PM
> > To: dts@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Xu, HuilongX <huilongx.xu@intel.com>
> > Subject: [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test
> > case
> >
> > Signed-off-by: xu,huilong <huilongx.xu@intel.com>
> > ---
> > tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py | 35
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
> > b/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py index 78ae34d..5ab8b6b 100644
> > --- a/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
> > +++ b/tests/TestSuite_pmdrss_hash.py
> > @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ class TestPmdrssHash(TestCase):
> > else:
> > self.verify(False, "NIC Unsupported:%s" % str(self.nic))
> > ports = self.dut.get_ports(self.nic)
> > - self.verify(len(ports) >= 1, "Not enough ports available")
> > + self.verify(len(ports) >= 2, "Not enough ports available")
> >
> > def set_up(self):
> > """
> > @@ -650,6 +650,39 @@ class TestPmdrssHash(TestCase):
> > self.send_packet_symmetric(itf, iptype)
> >
> > self.dut.send_expect("quit", "# ", 30)
>
> Need blank line here.
Thanks, I will send V2 patch and fix it
>
>
> > + def test_dyanmic_rss_bond_config(self):
>
> Typo, should be dynamic.
Thanks I will send V2 patch and fix it
>
>
> > + self.dut.send_expect("./%s/app/testpmd -c f -n 4 -- -i --
> > txqflags=0" % self.target, "testpmd> ", 120)
> > + out = self.dut.send_expect("create bonded device 3 0",
> > + "testpmd>
> > ", 30)
> > + bond_device_id = int(re.search("port \d+", out).group().split("
> > ")[-1].strip())
> > + self.verify(bond_device_id > 1, "not enought port for bonded
> > test")
>
> This criteria has been validated in set_up_all function, no need here.
Yes, I will remove it in V2 patch
>
> > +
> > + self.dut.send_expect("add bonding slave 0 %d" %
> > + bond_device_id,
> > "testpmd>", 30)
> > + self.dut.send_expect("add bonding slave 1 %d" %
> > + bond_device_id,
> > "testpmd>", 30)
> > +
> > + out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 0",
> > + "testpmd>")
> > +
> > + slave0_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+",
> > out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
> > + out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 1", "testpmd>")
> > + slave1_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+",
> > out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
> > +
> > + self.verify(slave0_hash_function == slave1_hash_function,
> > "default hash function not match")
> > +
> > + new_hash_function = ""
> > + for hash_function in ["toeplitz", "simple_xor"]:
> > + if slave0_hash_function[-3:].lower() != hash_function[-3:]:
> > + new_hash_function = hash_function
> > +
> > + self.dut.send_expect("set_hash_global_config 0 %s ipv4-other
> > enable" % new_hash_function, "testpmd>")
> > +
> > + out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 0", "testpmd>")
> > + slave0_new_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+",
> > out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
> > + out = self.dut.send_expect("get_hash_global_config 1", "testpmd>")
> > + slave1_new_hash_function = re.search("Hash function is .+",
> > out).group().split(" ")[-1].strip()
> > + self.verify(slave0_new_hash_function ==
> > + slave1_new_hash_function,
> > "bond slave auto sync hash function failed")
> > + self.verify(slave0_new_hash_function[-3:].lower() ==
> > new_hash_function[-3:], "changed slave hash function failed")
> > +
> Not sure set and get is enough for validation, hash function not checked here.
This case only check update slave0 hash function, and slave1 will auto sync hash function.
So there are two check point.
First point: salv0 and slav1 hash function must same
Second point: slav0 hash function update successful.
>
> > + self.dut.send_expect("quit","# ", 30)
> > +
> >
> > def tear_down(self):
> > """
> > --
> > 1.9.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test case
2017-03-02 8:12 ` Liu, Yong
@ 2017-03-02 8:30 ` Xu, HuilongX
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Xu, HuilongX @ 2017-03-02 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Liu, Yong, dts
Yes, we only should check testpmd log, because hash function check by other case,
In pmdrss_hash suite, we have five test case to check every hash function and hash key.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Yong
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 4:13 PM
> To: Xu, HuilongX; dts@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test
> case
>
> Huilong,
> My question is that whether only check output log from testpmd is enough
> for function check? Should hash function be validated too?
>
> On 03/02/2017 04:14 PM, Xu, HuilongX wrote:
> >>> +
> >> >Not sure set and get is enough for validation, hash function not checked
> here.
> > This case only check update slave0 hash function, and slave1 will auto sync
> hash function.
> > So there are two check point.
> > First point: salv0 and slav1 hash function must same Second point:
> > slav0 hash function update successful.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-02 8:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-03-01 9:25 [dts] [PATCH V1 2/2] add dyanmic config bonding rss hash test case xu,huilong
2017-03-01 13:30 ` Liu, Yong
2017-03-02 8:14 ` Xu, HuilongX
2017-03-02 8:12 ` Liu, Yong
2017-03-02 8:30 ` Xu, HuilongX
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).