From: Dharmik Thakkar <Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: Yipeng Wang <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>,
Sameh Gobriel <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>,
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
dev <dev@dpdk.org>, dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org>,
Michael Santana <msantana@redhat.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] test/hash: rectify slaveid to point to valid cores
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:56:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <89DD5489-BABD-4BAA-8815-68F9D18BF301@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8x+zkU=L=uoz2rNyVhdQSg0AUMXU6r2M970N6LMBrE3xw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi David,
Thank you for your comments!
> On Jun 1, 2019, at 10:59 AM, David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 1:28 AM Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> wrote:
> This patch rectifies slave_id passed to rte_eal_wait_lcore()
> to point to valid cores in read-write lock-free concurrency test.
>
> It also replaces a 'for' loop with RTE_LCORE_FOREACH API.
>
> Fixes: dfd9d5537e876 ("test/hash: use existing lcore API")
>
> This incriminated commit only converts direct access to lcore_config into call to rte_eal_wait_lcore.
> So it did not introduce the issue you want to fix.
>
> The Fixes: tag should probably be:
> Fixes: c7eb0972e74b ("test/hash: add lock-free r/w concurrency”)
Yes, you are essentially correct. However, 'git blame' pointed to dfd9d5537e876 ("test/hash: use existing lcore API”).
>
>
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> ---
> app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c
> index 343a338b4ea8..af1ee9c34394 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c
> @@ -126,11 +126,9 @@ get_enabled_cores_list(void)
> uint32_t i = 0;
> uint16_t core_id;
> uint32_t max_cores = rte_lcore_count();
> - for (core_id = 0; core_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE && i < max_cores; core_id++) {
> - if (rte_lcore_is_enabled(core_id)) {
> - enabled_core_ids[i] = core_id;
> - i++;
> - }
> + RTE_LCORE_FOREACH(core_id) {
> + enabled_core_ids[i] = core_id;
> + i++;
> }
>
> if (i != max_cores) {
> @@ -738,7 +736,7 @@ test_hash_add_no_ks_lookup_hit(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf,
> enabled_core_ids[i]);
>
> for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> - if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> + if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> goto err;
>
> unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -810,7 +808,7 @@ test_hash_add_no_ks_lookup_miss(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf,
> if (ret < 0)
> goto err;
> for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> - if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> + if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> goto err;
>
> unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -886,7 +884,7 @@ test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_non_sp(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results,
> if (ret < 0)
> goto err;
> for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> - if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> + if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> goto err;
>
> unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -962,7 +960,7 @@ test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_sp(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf,
> if (ret < 0)
> goto err;
> for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> - if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> + if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> goto err;
>
> unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -1037,7 +1035,7 @@ test_hash_add_ks_lookup_miss(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf, int
> if (ret < 0)
> goto err;
> for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> - if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> + if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> goto err;
>
> unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -1132,12 +1130,12 @@ test_hash_multi_add_lookup(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf,
> for (i = rwc_core_cnt[n] + 1;
> i <= rwc_core_cnt[m] + rwc_core_cnt[n];
> i++)
> - rte_eal_wait_lcore(i);
> + rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]);
>
> writer_done = 1;
>
> for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> - if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> + if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> goto err;
>
> unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
>
> Checkpatch complains here.
I believe you are referring to the warning of line over 80 characters in Line 1138. I think it should be fine.
>
>
> @@ -1221,7 +1219,7 @@ test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_extbkt(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results,
> writer_done = 1;
>
> for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> - if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> + if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> goto err;
>
> unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>
> The rest looks good to me.
>
> We have accumulated quite some fixes with Michael on app/test.
> Do you mind if I take your patch as part of our series?
Please, go ahead.
> I would change the Fixes: tag, fix the checkpatch warning, and send it next week.
I am not sure about this. Do we simply go by 'git blame' or insert the commit that truly introduced the error?
>
> Bon week-end.
Thank you! You have a great week ahead.
>
>
> --
> David Marchand
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-03 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-31 23:27 Dharmik Thakkar
2019-06-01 15:59 ` David Marchand
2019-06-03 16:56 ` Dharmik Thakkar [this message]
2019-06-03 19:31 ` David Marchand
2019-06-03 20:43 ` Dharmik Thakkar
2019-06-05 17:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=89DD5489-BABD-4BAA-8815-68F9D18BF301@arm.com \
--to=dharmik.thakkar@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=msantana@redhat.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
--cc=sameh.gobriel@intel.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=yipeng1.wang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).