+Honnappa Hi Yipeng,
Thank you for the review comments! > On Apr 1, 2019, at 1:55 PM, Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.w...@intel.com> wrote: > > 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 Exceeds 50 characters limit. >> >> Add unit test to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf. > [Wang, Yipeng] for extendable bucket feature. Will update in the next version. >> Test with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled. > [Wang, Yipeng] It is tested with both lock-free enabled and disabled case. Will update in the next version. > >> >> 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: It is a single test wherein lookup perf is tested for with hash delete causing key-shifts. I will put it as Test includes: > - 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. Keys in ext bkt (including shifted keys) are being read in a loop while writer_done equals 0 i.e. while keys are being deleted. Test fails if look up fails. Do you think there is still a need to add one more round of look up on all the keys in ext bkt (some of which have now been shifted to secondary bkts)?
