A little bit improvement on commit-message maybe needed.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dharmik Thakkar [mailto:dharmik.thak...@arm.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:09 PM
>To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.w...@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh
><sameh.gobr...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
><bruce.richard...@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
><pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] test/hash: lock-free rw concurrency test ext bkt
[Wang, Yipeng] *for* ext bucket
>
>Add unit test to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf.
[Wang, Yipeng] for extendable bucket feature.
>Test with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled.
[Wang, Yipeng] It is tested with both lock-free enabled and disabled case.
>
>Test include:
>
>- hash lookup on keys in ext bkt,
>hash delete causing key-shifts of keys from ext bkt to secondary bkt
[Wang, Yipeng]
Two test scenarios right? A bit of formatting..
Tests include:
- hash lookup on keys in ext bucket.
- hash delete causing key-shifts of keys from ext bucket to secondary bucket.
>
>Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>
>Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>---
>+/*
>+ * Test lookup perf:
>+ * Reader(s) lookup keys present in the extendable bkt.
>+ */
>+static int
>+test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_extbkt(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results,
>+ int rwc_lf, int htm, int ext_bkt)
>+{
>+ unsigned int n, m;
>+ uint64_t i;
>+ int use_jhash = 0;
>+ uint8_t write_type;
>+ uint8_t read_type = READ_PASS_KEY_SHIFTS_EXTBKT;
>+
>+ rte_atomic64_init(&greads);
>+ rte_atomic64_init(&gread_cycles);
>+
>+ if (init_params(rwc_lf, use_jhash, htm, ext_bkt) != 0)
>+ goto err;
>+ printf("\nTest: Hash add - key-shifts, read - hit (ext_bkt)\n");
>+ for (m = 0; m < 2; m++) {
>+ if (m == 1) {
>+ printf("\n** With bulk-lookup **\n");
>+ read_type |= BULK_LOOKUP;
>+ }
>+ for (n = 0; n < NUM_TEST; n++) {
>+ unsigned int tot_lcore = rte_lcore_count();
>+ if (tot_lcore < rwc_core_cnt[n] + 1)
>+ goto finish;
>+
>+ printf("\nNumber of readers: %u\n", rwc_core_cnt[n]);
>+
>+ rte_atomic64_clear(&greads);
>+ rte_atomic64_clear(&gread_cycles);
>+
>+ rte_hash_reset(tbl_rwc_test_param.h);
>+ write_type = WRITE_NO_KEY_SHIFT;
>+ if (write_keys(write_type) < 0)
>+ goto err;
>+ write_type = WRITE_KEY_SHIFT;
>+ if (write_keys(write_type) < 0)
>+ goto err;
>+ writer_done = 0;
>+ for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
>+ rte_eal_remote_launch(test_rwc_reader,
>+ (void *)(uintptr_t)read_type,
>+ enabled_core_ids[i]);
>+ for (i = 0; i < tbl_rwc_test_param.count_keys_ks_extbkt;
>+ i++) {
>+ if (rte_hash_del_key(tbl_rwc_test_param.h,
>+ tbl_rwc_test_param.keys_ks_extbkt + i)
>+ < 0) {
>+ printf("Delete Failed: %u\n",
>+ tbl_rwc_test_param.keys_ks_extbkt[i]);
>+ goto err;
>+ }
>+ }
>+ writer_done = 1;
>+ rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();
[Wang, Yipeng] Not requirement for this perf patch, but is it better to read
the shifted key again
Just to verify the logic? If not difficult please add.
