> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trybula, ArturX <arturx.tryb...@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:29 PM
> To: Shally Verma <shal...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona
> <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Dybkowski, AdamX
> <adamx.dybkow...@intel.com>
> Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/test-compress-perf: report
> header improvement
>
> External Email
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shally Verma [mailto:shal...@marvell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 19:04
> To: Trybula, ArturX <arturx.tryb...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona
> <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Dybkowski, AdamX
> <adamx.dybkow...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/test-compress-perf: report header
> improvement
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Artur Trybula
> > Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 3:54 PM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org; fiona.tr...@intel.com; arturx.tryb...@intel.com;
> > adamx.dybkow...@intel.com
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/test-compress-perf: report header
> > improvement
> >
> > This patch adds extra features to the compress performance test. Some
> > important parameters (memory allocation, number of ops, number of
> > segments) are calculated and printed out on the screen.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Artur Trybula <arturx.tryb...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > app/test-compress-perf/main.c | 105
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> ......
> >
> > -
> > +static void
> > +print_report_header(void)
> > +{
> > + uint32_t opt_total_segs = DIV_CEIL(tests_res.input_data_sz,
> > + MAX_SEG_SIZE);
> > +
> > + if (tests_res.total_buffs > 1) {
> > + printf("\nWarning: for the current input parameters number"
> > + " of ops is higher than one, which may result"
> > + " in sub-optimal performance.\n");
> > + printf("To improve the performance (for the current"
> > + " input data) following parameters are"
> > + " suggested:\n");
> > + printf(" • Segment size: %d\n", MAX_SEG_SIZE);
> > + printf(" • Number of segments: %u\n", opt_total_segs);
> > + } else if (tests_res.total_buffs == 1) {
> > + printf("\nWarning: There is only one op with %u segments –"
> > + " the compression ratio is the best.\n",
> > + tests_res.segments_per_last_buff);
> > + if (tests_res.segment_sz < MAX_SEG_SIZE)
> > + printf("To reduce compression time, please use"
> > + " bigger segment size: %d.\n",
> > + MAX_SEG_SIZE);
> > + else if (tests_res.segment_sz == MAX_SEG_SIZE)
> > + printf("Segment size is optimal for the best"
> > + " performance.\n");
>
> [Shally] Why these kind of warnings? If total_bufs > 1, then, how behavior
> would change? Same question for segment size as well?
> [Artur] I suppose you mean the second one "Warning: There is only one ...".
> It's just to preserve the structure of the report for both variants. But I
> agree,
> there is nothing wrong if there is only one op.
> Please notice that each op is processed independently, in most cases it
> implies lower compression ratio. The best situation is to have all the input
> data aggregated into one op (even if partitioned across many mbufs).
>
[Shally] Then can we better covert this in terms of "stateless" and "stateful"
. Example,
Say it like:
Since test app support stateless mode only, thus if input data is segmented
across multiple buffers (i.e. op)
Then each will be processed independently (i.e. in stateless mode) . Thus to
gain better results, it might be more useful to put
all data in one buffer.
> > + } else
> > + printf("Warning: something wrong happened!!\n");
> > +
> > + printf("\nFor the current input parameters (segment size = %u,"
> > + " segments number = %u):\n",
> > + tests_res.segment_sz,
> > + tests_res.segments_per_buff);
> > + printf(" • Total number of segments: %d\n",
> > + tests_res.total_segments);
> > + printf(" • %u segments %u bytes long, last segment %u"
> > + " byte(s) long\n",
> > + tests_res.total_segments - 1,
> > + tests_res.segment_sz,
> > + tests_res.last_segment_sz);
> > + printf(" • Number of ops: %u\n", tests_res.total_buffs);
> > + printf(" • Total memory allocation: %u\n",
> > + (tests_res.total_segments - 1) * tests_res.segment_sz
> > + + tests_res.last_segment_sz);
> > + if (tests_res.total_buffs > 1)
> > + printf(" • %u ops: %u segments in each,"
> > + " segment size %u\n",
> > + tests_res.total_buffs - 1,
> > + tests_res.segments_per_buff,
> > + tests_res.segment_sz);
> > + if (tests_res.segments_per_last_buff > 1) {
> > + printf(" • 1 op %u segments:\n",
> > + tests_res.segments_per_last_buff);
> > + printf(" o %u segment size %u\n",
> > + tests_res.segments_per_last_buff - 1,
> > + tests_res.segment_sz);
> > + printf(" o last segment size %u\n",
> > + tests_res.last_segment_sz);
> > + } else if (tests_res.segments_per_last_buff == 1) {
> > + printf(" • 1 op (the last one): %u segment %u"
> > + " byte(s) long\n\n",
> > + tests_res.segments_per_last_buff,
> > + tests_res.last_segment_sz);
> > + }
> > +}
> >
> > int
> > main(int argc, char **argv)
> > @@ -533,8 +622,9 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
> > else
> > level = test_data->level.list[0];
> >
> > + print_report_header();
> > +
> [Shally] looks like we're printing input characteristics and possible
> performance behavior. Is that the intention of this API?
> [Artur] That was the idea to have a tool for verification how the data
> partitioning affects the compression performance. Your description Shally is
> very accurate: "... printing input characteristics and possible performance
> behavior" and that is the intention of this API.
[Shally] Then probably we can add this in function description.
>
>
> > printf("Burst size = %u\n", test_data->burst_sz);
> > - printf("File size = %zu\n", test_data->input_data_sz);
> >
> > printf("%6s%12s%17s%19s%21s%15s%21s%23s%16s\n",
> > "Level", "Comp size", "Comp ratio [%]", @@ -612,3 +702,4
> @@
> > main(int argc, char **argv)
> > }
> > return ret;
> > }
> > +
> > --
> > 2.17.1
