Hi,
>
> Add performance test on all available cores to benchmark
> the scaling up performance and fairness of rw_lock.
>
> Fixes: af75078faf ("first public release")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Suggested-by: Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joyce Kong <joyce.k...@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljed...@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
> ---
> test/test/test_rwlock.c | 71
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/test/test/test_rwlock.c b/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> index 29171c4..4766c09 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> +#include <inttypes.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <sys/queue.h>
>
> @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@
>
> static rte_rwlock_t sl;
> static rte_rwlock_t sl_tab[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
> +static rte_atomic32_t synchro;
>
> static int
> test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
> @@ -65,6 +67,72 @@ test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static rte_rwlock_t lk = RTE_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER;
> +static uint64_t lock_count[RTE_MAX_LCORE] = {0};
> +
> +#define TIME_MS 100
> +
> +static int
> +load_loop_fn(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
> +{
> + uint64_t time_diff = 0, begin;
> + uint64_t hz = rte_get_timer_hz();
> + uint64_t lcount = 0;
> + const unsigned int lcore = rte_lcore_id();
> +
> + /* wait synchro for slaves */
> + if (lcore != rte_get_master_lcore())
> + while (rte_atomic32_read(&synchro) == 0)
> + ;
> +
> + begin = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> + while (time_diff < hz * TIME_MS / 1000) {
> + rte_rwlock_write_lock(&lk);
> + rte_pause();
Wouldn't it be more realistic to write/read some shared data here?
Again extra checking could be done in that case that lock behaves as expected.
> + rte_rwlock_write_unlock(&lk);
> + rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);
> + rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);
Wonder what is the point of double rdlock here?
Konstantin
> + rte_pause();
> + rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
> + rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
> + lcount++;
> + /* delay to make lock duty cycle slightly realistic */
> + rte_pause();
> + time_diff = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
> + }
> + lock_count[lcore] = lcount;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
