>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:49 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <honnappa.nagaraha...@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.nagaraha...@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
