diff mbox series

[v2,3/5] test/hash: add lock free reader writer functional tests

Message ID 20200203194912.4669-4-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted, archived
Delegated to: David Marchand
Headers show
Series test/meson: fix hash readwrite timeout failure | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/Intel-compilation fail apply issues
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK

Commit Message

Honnappa Nagarahalli Feb. 3, 2020, 7:49 p.m. UTC
Add lock-free reader writer concurrency functional tests.
These tests will provide the same coverage that non lock-free
APIs have.

Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
---
 app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

Comments

David Marchand Feb. 5, 2020, 9:07 a.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:49 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli
<honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Add lock-free reader writer concurrency functional tests.
> These tests will provide the same coverage that non lock-free
> APIs have.
>
> Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> ---
>  app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> index 635ed5a9f..a9429091c 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ test_hash_readwrite_worker(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
>  }
>
>  static int
> -init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
> +init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int rw_lf, int use_jhash)
>  {
>         unsigned int i;
>
> @@ -140,15 +140,16 @@ init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
>         else
>                 hash_params.hash_func = rte_hash_crc;
>
> +       hash_params.extra_flag = RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
>         if (use_htm)
> -               hash_params.extra_flag =
> -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT |
> -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
> -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT;
> +       if (rw_lf)
> +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY_LF;
>         else
> -               hash_params.extra_flag =
> -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
> -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY;
>
>         if (use_ext)
>                 hash_params.extra_flag |=
> @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
>  }
>
>  static int
> -test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int use_htm)
> +test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_htm, int use_rw_lf, int use_ext)

This is a bit hard to read, please keep the same order than init_params.


>  {
>         unsigned int i;
>         const void *next_key;
> @@ -214,7 +215,7 @@ test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int use_htm)
>         rte_atomic64_init(&ginsertions);
>         rte_atomic64_clear(&ginsertions);
>
> -       if (init_params(use_ext, use_htm, use_jhash) != 0)
> +       if (init_params(use_ext, use_htm, use_rw_lf, use_jhash) != 0)
>                 goto err;
>
>         if (use_ext)
> @@ -229,6 +230,8 @@ test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int use_htm)
>                 tbl_rw_test_param.num_insert
>                 * slave_cnt;
>
> +       printf("\nHTM = %d, RW-LF = %d, EXT-Table = %d\n",
> +               use_htm, use_rw_lf, use_ext);
>         printf("++++++++Start function tests:+++++++++\n");
>
>         /* Fire all threads. */
> @@ -379,7 +382,7 @@ test_hash_readwrite_perf(struct perf *perf_results, int use_htm,
>         rte_atomic64_init(&gwrite_cycles);
>         rte_atomic64_clear(&gwrite_cycles);
>
> -       if (init_params(0, use_htm, use_jhash) != 0)
> +       if (init_params(0, use_htm, 0, use_jhash) != 0)
>                 goto err;
>
>         /*
> @@ -700,7 +703,6 @@ test_hash_rw_func_main(void)
>          * than writer threads. This is to timing either reader threads or
>          * writer threads for performance numbers.
>          */
> -       int use_htm, use_ext;

The comments block just before is out of sync.


>         unsigned int i = 0, core_id = 0;
>
>         if (rte_lcore_count() < 3) {
> @@ -721,29 +723,41 @@ test_hash_rw_func_main(void)
>
>                 printf("Test read-write with Hardware transactional memory\n");
>
> -               use_htm = 1;
> -               use_ext = 0;
> +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 0, ext = 0 */

I didn't like those local variables.
But comments tend to get out of sync fairly easily, please remove too.


> +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 0, 0) < 0)
> +                       return -1;
>
> -               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 1, ext = 0 */
> +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 1, 0) < 0)
>                         return -1;
>
> -               use_ext = 1;
> -               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 0, ext = 1 */
> +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 0, 1) < 0)
>                         return -1;
>
> +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 1, ext = 1 */
> +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 1, 1) < 0)
> +                       return -1;
>         } else {
>                 printf("Hardware transactional memory (lock elision) "
>                         "is NOT supported\n");
>         }
>
>         printf("Test read-write without Hardware transactional memory\n");
> -       use_htm = 0;
> -       use_ext = 0;
> -       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 0, ext = 0 */
> +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 0, 0) < 0)
> +               return -1;
> +
> +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 1, ext = 0 */
> +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 1, 0) < 0)
> +               return -1;
> +
> +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 0, ext = 1 */
> +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 0, 1) < 0)
>                 return -1;
>
> -       use_ext = 1;
> -       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 1, ext = 1 */
> +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 1, 1) < 0)
>                 return -1;
>
>         return 0;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Honnappa Nagarahalli Feb. 5, 2020, 4:22 p.m. UTC | #2
> 
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:49 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add lock-free reader writer concurrency functional tests.
> > These tests will provide the same coverage that non lock-free APIs
> > have.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c | 58
> > +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> > b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c index 635ed5a9f..a9429091c 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
> test_hash_readwrite_worker(__attribute__((unused))
> > void *arg)  }
> >
> >  static int
> > -init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
> > +init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int rw_lf, int use_jhash)
> >  {
> >         unsigned int i;
> >
> > @@ -140,15 +140,16 @@ init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int
> use_jhash)
> >         else
> >                 hash_params.hash_func = rte_hash_crc;
> >
> > +       hash_params.extra_flag =
> > + RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> >         if (use_htm)
> > -               hash_params.extra_flag =
> > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT |
> > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
> > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> > +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> > +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT;
> > +       if (rw_lf)
> > +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> > +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY_LF;
> >         else
> > -               hash_params.extra_flag =
> > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
> > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> > +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> > +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY;
> >
> >         if (use_ext)
> >                 hash_params.extra_flag |= @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@
> > init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)  }
> >
> >  static int
> > -test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int use_htm)
> > +test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_htm, int use_rw_lf, int
> > +use_ext)
> 
> This is a bit hard to read, please keep the same order than init_params.
It looks like it is better to change the init_params. Otherwise, the code in test_hash_rw_func_main becomes hard to read. See the comment below.

> 
> 
> >  {
> >         unsigned int i;
> >         const void *next_key;
> > @@ -214,7 +215,7 @@ test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int
> use_htm)
> >         rte_atomic64_init(&ginsertions);
> >         rte_atomic64_clear(&ginsertions);
> >
> > -       if (init_params(use_ext, use_htm, use_jhash) != 0)
> > +       if (init_params(use_ext, use_htm, use_rw_lf, use_jhash) != 0)
> >                 goto err;
> >
> >         if (use_ext)
> > @@ -229,6 +230,8 @@ test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int
> use_htm)
> >                 tbl_rw_test_param.num_insert
> >                 * slave_cnt;
> >
> > +       printf("\nHTM = %d, RW-LF = %d, EXT-Table = %d\n",
> > +               use_htm, use_rw_lf, use_ext);
> >         printf("++++++++Start function tests:+++++++++\n");
> >
> >         /* Fire all threads. */
> > @@ -379,7 +382,7 @@ test_hash_readwrite_perf(struct perf *perf_results,
> int use_htm,
> >         rte_atomic64_init(&gwrite_cycles);
> >         rte_atomic64_clear(&gwrite_cycles);
> >
> > -       if (init_params(0, use_htm, use_jhash) != 0)
> > +       if (init_params(0, use_htm, 0, use_jhash) != 0)
> >                 goto err;
> >
> >         /*
> > @@ -700,7 +703,6 @@ test_hash_rw_func_main(void)
> >          * than writer threads. This is to timing either reader threads or
> >          * writer threads for performance numbers.
> >          */
> > -       int use_htm, use_ext;
> 
> The comments block just before is out of sync.
> 
> 
> >         unsigned int i = 0, core_id = 0;
> >
> >         if (rte_lcore_count() < 3) {
> > @@ -721,29 +723,41 @@ test_hash_rw_func_main(void)
> >
> >                 printf("Test read-write with Hardware transactional
> > memory\n");
> >
> > -               use_htm = 1;
> > -               use_ext = 0;
> > +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 0, ext = 0 */
> 
> I didn't like those local variables.
> But comments tend to get out of sync fairly easily, please remove too.
> 
> 
> > +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 0, 0) < 0)
> > +                       return -1;
> >
> > -               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> > +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 1, ext = 0 */
> > +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 1, 0) < 0)
> >                         return -1;
> >
> > -               use_ext = 1;
> > -               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> > +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 0, ext = 1 */
> > +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 0, 1) < 0)
> >                         return -1;
> >
> > +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 1, ext = 1 */
> > +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 1, 1) < 0)
> > +                       return -1;
> >         } else {
> >                 printf("Hardware transactional memory (lock elision) "
> >                         "is NOT supported\n");
> >         }
> >
> >         printf("Test read-write without Hardware transactional memory\n");
> > -       use_htm = 0;
> > -       use_ext = 0;
> > -       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> > +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 0, ext = 0 */
> > +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 0, 0) < 0)
> > +               return -1;
> > +
> > +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 1, ext = 0 */
> > +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 1, 0) < 0)
> > +               return -1;
> > +
> > +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 0, ext = 1 */
> > +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 0, 1) < 0)
> >                 return -1;
> >
> > -       use_ext = 1;
> > -       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> > +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 1, ext = 1 */
> > +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 1, 1) < 0)
> >                 return -1;
The ordering of bits (0-0-0, 0-1-0, 0-0-1, 0-1-1) looks better here.

> >
> >         return 0;
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
> 
> 
> --
> David Marchand
David Marchand Feb. 5, 2020, 4:41 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 5:22 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli
<Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:49 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add lock-free reader writer concurrency functional tests.
> > > These tests will provide the same coverage that non lock-free APIs
> > > have.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c | 58
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > >  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> > > b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c index 635ed5a9f..a9429091c 100644
> > > --- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> > > +++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
> > test_hash_readwrite_worker(__attribute__((unused))
> > > void *arg)  }
> > >
> > >  static int
> > > -init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
> > > +init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int rw_lf, int use_jhash)
> > >  {
> > >         unsigned int i;
> > >
> > > @@ -140,15 +140,16 @@ init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int
> > use_jhash)
> > >         else
> > >                 hash_params.hash_func = rte_hash_crc;
> > >
> > > +       hash_params.extra_flag =
> > > + RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> > >         if (use_htm)
> > > -               hash_params.extra_flag =
> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT |
> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> > > +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> > > +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT;
> > > +       if (rw_lf)
> > > +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> > > +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY_LF;
> > >         else
> > > -               hash_params.extra_flag =
> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> > > +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> > > +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY;
> > >
> > >         if (use_ext)
> > >                 hash_params.extra_flag |= @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@
> > > init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)  }
> > >
> > >  static int
> > > -test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int use_htm)
> > > +test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_htm, int use_rw_lf, int
> > > +use_ext)
> >
> > This is a bit hard to read, please keep the same order than init_params.
> It looks like it is better to change the init_params. Otherwise, the code in test_hash_rw_func_main becomes hard to read. See the comment below.
>
> >
> >
> > >  {
> > >         unsigned int i;
> > >         const void *next_key;
> > > @@ -214,7 +215,7 @@ test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int
> > use_htm)
> > >         rte_atomic64_init(&ginsertions);
> > >         rte_atomic64_clear(&ginsertions);
> > >
> > > -       if (init_params(use_ext, use_htm, use_jhash) != 0)
> > > +       if (init_params(use_ext, use_htm, use_rw_lf, use_jhash) != 0)
> > >                 goto err;
> > >
> > >         if (use_ext)
> > > @@ -229,6 +230,8 @@ test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int
> > use_htm)
> > >                 tbl_rw_test_param.num_insert
> > >                 * slave_cnt;
> > >
> > > +       printf("\nHTM = %d, RW-LF = %d, EXT-Table = %d\n",
> > > +               use_htm, use_rw_lf, use_ext);
> > >         printf("++++++++Start function tests:+++++++++\n");
> > >
> > >         /* Fire all threads. */
> > > @@ -379,7 +382,7 @@ test_hash_readwrite_perf(struct perf *perf_results,
> > int use_htm,
> > >         rte_atomic64_init(&gwrite_cycles);
> > >         rte_atomic64_clear(&gwrite_cycles);
> > >
> > > -       if (init_params(0, use_htm, use_jhash) != 0)
> > > +       if (init_params(0, use_htm, 0, use_jhash) != 0)
> > >                 goto err;
> > >
> > >         /*
> > > @@ -700,7 +703,6 @@ test_hash_rw_func_main(void)
> > >          * than writer threads. This is to timing either reader threads or
> > >          * writer threads for performance numbers.
> > >          */
> > > -       int use_htm, use_ext;
> >
> > The comments block just before is out of sync.
> >
> >
> > >         unsigned int i = 0, core_id = 0;
> > >
> > >         if (rte_lcore_count() < 3) {
> > > @@ -721,29 +723,41 @@ test_hash_rw_func_main(void)
> > >
> > >                 printf("Test read-write with Hardware transactional
> > > memory\n");
> > >
> > > -               use_htm = 1;
> > > -               use_ext = 0;
> > > +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 0, ext = 0 */
> >
> > I didn't like those local variables.
> > But comments tend to get out of sync fairly easily, please remove too.
> >
> >
> > > +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 0, 0) < 0)
> > > +                       return -1;
> > >
> > > -               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> > > +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 1, ext = 0 */
> > > +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 1, 0) < 0)
> > >                         return -1;
> > >
> > > -               use_ext = 1;
> > > -               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> > > +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 0, ext = 1 */
> > > +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 0, 1) < 0)
> > >                         return -1;
> > >
> > > +               /* htm = 1, rw_lf = 1, ext = 1 */
> > > +               if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 1, 1) < 0)
> > > +                       return -1;
> > >         } else {
> > >                 printf("Hardware transactional memory (lock elision) "
> > >                         "is NOT supported\n");
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         printf("Test read-write without Hardware transactional memory\n");
> > > -       use_htm = 0;
> > > -       use_ext = 0;
> > > -       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> > > +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 0, ext = 0 */
> > > +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 0, 0) < 0)
> > > +               return -1;
> > > +
> > > +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 1, ext = 0 */
> > > +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 1, 0) < 0)
> > > +               return -1;
> > > +
> > > +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 0, ext = 1 */
> > > +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 0, 1) < 0)
> > >                 return -1;
> > >
> > > -       use_ext = 1;
> > > -       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
> > > +       /* htm = 0, rw_lf = 1, ext = 1 */
> > > +       if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 1, 1) < 0)
> > >                 return -1;
> The ordering of bits (0-0-0, 0-1-0, 0-0-1, 0-1-1) looks better here.

Ok, forget my comment.
I just want to get rid of this series and we stop getting random
timeout in the CI.
I will take it as is and cleanup if I find some time later.
Wang, Yipeng1 Feb. 5, 2020, 7:34 p.m. UTC | #4
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Marchand [mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 8:42 AM
>To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
>Cc: Amit Gupta <agupta3@marvell.com>; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>;
>thomas@monjalon.net; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; nd <nd@arm.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] test/hash: add lock free reader writer functional tests
>
>On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 5:22 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli
><Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:49 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli
>> > <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Add lock-free reader writer concurrency functional tests.
>> > > These tests will provide the same coverage that non lock-free APIs
>> > > have.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >  app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c | 58
>> > > +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> > >  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
>> > > b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c index 635ed5a9f..a9429091c 100644
>> > > --- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
>> > > +++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
>> > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
>> > test_hash_readwrite_worker(__attribute__((unused))
>> > > void *arg)  }
>> > >
>> > >  static int
>> > > -init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
>> > > +init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int rw_lf, int use_jhash)
>> > >  {
>> > >         unsigned int i;
>> > >
>> > > @@ -140,15 +140,16 @@ init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int
>> > use_jhash)
>> > >         else
>> > >                 hash_params.hash_func = rte_hash_crc;
>> > >
>> > > +       hash_params.extra_flag =
>> > > + RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
>> > >         if (use_htm)
>> > > -               hash_params.extra_flag =
>> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT |
>> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
>> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
>> > > +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
>> > > +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT;

[Wang, Yipeng] Thanks for the patch Honnappa. Here I think we still need the RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY
Flag even with HTM.

Other commits in this series look good to me and seems David already applied.

Thanks!
Honnappa Nagarahalli Feb. 5, 2020, 7:52 p.m. UTC | #5
<snip>

> >> > >
> >> > > Add lock-free reader writer concurrency functional tests.
> >> > > These tests will provide the same coverage that non lock-free
> >> > > APIs have.
> >> > >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli
> >> > > <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> >> > > ---
> >> > >  app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c | 58
> >> > > +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >> > >  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >> > >
> >> > > diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> >> > > b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c index 635ed5a9f..a9429091c
> >> > > 100644
> >> > > --- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> >> > > +++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
> >> > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
> >> > test_hash_readwrite_worker(__attribute__((unused))
> >> > > void *arg)  }
> >> > >
> >> > >  static int
> >> > > -init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
> >> > > +init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int rw_lf, int use_jhash)
> >> > >  {
> >> > >         unsigned int i;
> >> > >
> >> > > @@ -140,15 +140,16 @@ init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int
> >> > use_jhash)
> >> > >         else
> >> > >                 hash_params.hash_func = rte_hash_crc;
> >> > >
> >> > > +       hash_params.extra_flag =
> >> > > + RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> >> > >         if (use_htm)
> >> > > -               hash_params.extra_flag =
> >> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT |
> >> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
> >> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> >> > > +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
> >> > > +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT;
> 
> [Wang, Yipeng] Thanks for the patch Honnappa. Here I think we still need the
> RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY
> Flag even with HTM.
I have made RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY depend on 'rw_lf' flag. The test case HTM + RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY will still run when 'rw_lf' is set to 0.

> 
> Other commits in this series look good to me and seems David already
> applied.
> 
> Thanks!
Wang, Yipeng1 Feb. 5, 2020, 7:57 p.m. UTC | #6
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Honnappa Nagarahalli [mailto:Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:52 AM
>To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
>Cc: Amit Gupta <agupta3@marvell.com>; Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; dev <dev@dpdk.org>;
>nd <nd@arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
>Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 3/5] test/hash: add lock free reader writer functional tests
>
><snip>
>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Add lock-free reader writer concurrency functional tests.
>> >> > > These tests will provide the same coverage that non lock-free
>> >> > > APIs have.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli
>> >> > > <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
>> >> > > ---
>> >> > >  app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c | 58
>> >> > > +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> >> > >  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
>> >> > > b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c index 635ed5a9f..a9429091c
>> >> > > 100644
>> >> > > --- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
>> >> > > +++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
>> >> > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
>> >> > test_hash_readwrite_worker(__attribute__((unused))
>> >> > > void *arg)  }
>> >> > >
>> >> > >  static int
>> >> > > -init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
>> >> > > +init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int rw_lf, int use_jhash)
>> >> > >  {
>> >> > >         unsigned int i;
>> >> > >
>> >> > > @@ -140,15 +140,16 @@ init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int
>> >> > use_jhash)
>> >> > >         else
>> >> > >                 hash_params.hash_func = rte_hash_crc;
>> >> > >
>> >> > > +       hash_params.extra_flag =
>> >> > > + RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
>> >> > >         if (use_htm)
>> >> > > -               hash_params.extra_flag =
>> >> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT |
>> >> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
>> >> > > -                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
>> >> > > +               hash_params.extra_flag |=
>> >> > > +                       RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT;
>>
>> [Wang, Yipeng] Thanks for the patch Honnappa. Here I think we still need the
>> RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY
>> Flag even with HTM.
>I have made RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY depend on 'rw_lf' flag. The test case HTM +
>RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY will still run when 'rw_lf' is set to 0.
>
[Wang, Yipeng] 
I see, thought was an "else if". It is correct then,
Thanks!
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
index 635ed5a9f..a9429091c 100644
--- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
+++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@  test_hash_readwrite_worker(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
 }
 
 static int
-init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
+init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int rw_lf, int use_jhash)
 {
 	unsigned int i;
 
@@ -140,15 +140,16 @@  init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
 	else
 		hash_params.hash_func = rte_hash_crc;
 
+	hash_params.extra_flag = RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
 	if (use_htm)
-		hash_params.extra_flag =
-			RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT |
-			RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
-			RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
+		hash_params.extra_flag |=
+			RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_TRANS_MEM_SUPPORT;
+	if (rw_lf)
+		hash_params.extra_flag |=
+			RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY_LF;
 	else
-		hash_params.extra_flag =
-			RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY |
-			RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
+		hash_params.extra_flag |=
+			RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY;
 
 	if (use_ext)
 		hash_params.extra_flag |=
@@ -195,7 +196,7 @@  init_params(int use_ext, int use_htm, int use_jhash)
 }
 
 static int
-test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int use_htm)
+test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_htm, int use_rw_lf, int use_ext)
 {
 	unsigned int i;
 	const void *next_key;
@@ -214,7 +215,7 @@  test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int use_htm)
 	rte_atomic64_init(&ginsertions);
 	rte_atomic64_clear(&ginsertions);
 
-	if (init_params(use_ext, use_htm, use_jhash) != 0)
+	if (init_params(use_ext, use_htm, use_rw_lf, use_jhash) != 0)
 		goto err;
 
 	if (use_ext)
@@ -229,6 +230,8 @@  test_hash_readwrite_functional(int use_ext, int use_htm)
 		tbl_rw_test_param.num_insert
 		* slave_cnt;
 
+	printf("\nHTM = %d, RW-LF = %d, EXT-Table = %d\n",
+		use_htm, use_rw_lf, use_ext);
 	printf("++++++++Start function tests:+++++++++\n");
 
 	/* Fire all threads. */
@@ -379,7 +382,7 @@  test_hash_readwrite_perf(struct perf *perf_results, int use_htm,
 	rte_atomic64_init(&gwrite_cycles);
 	rte_atomic64_clear(&gwrite_cycles);
 
-	if (init_params(0, use_htm, use_jhash) != 0)
+	if (init_params(0, use_htm, 0, use_jhash) != 0)
 		goto err;
 
 	/*
@@ -700,7 +703,6 @@  test_hash_rw_func_main(void)
 	 * than writer threads. This is to timing either reader threads or
 	 * writer threads for performance numbers.
 	 */
-	int use_htm, use_ext;
 	unsigned int i = 0, core_id = 0;
 
 	if (rte_lcore_count() < 3) {
@@ -721,29 +723,41 @@  test_hash_rw_func_main(void)
 
 		printf("Test read-write with Hardware transactional memory\n");
 
-		use_htm = 1;
-		use_ext = 0;
+		/* htm = 1, rw_lf = 0, ext = 0 */
+		if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 0, 0) < 0)
+			return -1;
 
-		if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
+		/* htm = 1, rw_lf = 1, ext = 0 */
+		if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 1, 0) < 0)
 			return -1;
 
-		use_ext = 1;
-		if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
+		/* htm = 1, rw_lf = 0, ext = 1 */
+		if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 0, 1) < 0)
 			return -1;
 
+		/* htm = 1, rw_lf = 1, ext = 1 */
+		if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(1, 1, 1) < 0)
+			return -1;
 	} else {
 		printf("Hardware transactional memory (lock elision) "
 			"is NOT supported\n");
 	}
 
 	printf("Test read-write without Hardware transactional memory\n");
-	use_htm = 0;
-	use_ext = 0;
-	if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
+	/* htm = 0, rw_lf = 0, ext = 0 */
+	if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 0, 0) < 0)
+		return -1;
+
+	/* htm = 0, rw_lf = 1, ext = 0 */
+	if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 1, 0) < 0)
+		return -1;
+
+	/* htm = 0, rw_lf = 0, ext = 1 */
+	if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 0, 1) < 0)
 		return -1;
 
-	use_ext = 1;
-	if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(use_ext, use_htm) < 0)
+	/* htm = 0, rw_lf = 1, ext = 1 */
+	if (test_hash_readwrite_functional(0, 1, 1) < 0)
 		return -1;
 
 	return 0;