> On Oct 20, 2020, at 10:54 PM, Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.w...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:13 AM
>> To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.w...@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh
>> <sameh.gobr...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; n...@arm.com; Dharmik Thakkar
>> <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH v5 4/4] test/hash: add tests for integrated RCU QSBR
>>
>> Add functional and performance tests for the integrated RCU QSBR.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
>> ---
>> app/test/test_hash.c | 390 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf_perf.c | 170 ++++++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 556 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test/test_hash.c b/app/test/test_hash.c index
>> 990a1815f893..22b47b3e7728 100644
>> --- a/app/test/test_hash.c
>> +++ b/app/test/test_hash.c
>> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static uint32_t hashtest_key_lens[] = {0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,
>> 8, 10,
>> 11, 15, 16, 21,
>> } \
>> } while(0)
>>
>> -#define RETURN_IF_ERROR_FBK(cond, str, ...) do {
>> \
>> +#define RETURN_IF_ERROR_FBK(cond, str, ...) do { \
>> if (cond) { \
>> printf("ERROR line %d: " str "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__);
>> \
>> if (handle) rte_fbk_hash_free(handle); \
>> @@ -60,6 +60,20 @@ static uint32_t hashtest_key_lens[] = {0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,
>> 8,
>> 10, 11, 15, 16, 21,
>> } \
>> } while(0)
>>
>> +#define RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(cond, str, ...) do {
>> \
>> + if (cond) { \
>> + printf("ERROR line %d: " str "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__);
>> \
>> + if (rcu_cfg.mode == RTE_HASH_QSBR_MODE_SYNC) {
>> \
>> + writer_done = 1; \
>> + /* Wait until reader exited. */ \
>> + rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(); \
>> + } \
>> + if (g_handle) rte_hash_free(g_handle); \
>> + if (g_qsv) rte_free(g_qsv); \
>> + return -1; \
>> + } \
>> +} while(0)
>> +
>> /* 5-tuple key type */
>> struct flow_key {
>> uint32_t ip_src;
>> @@ -1801,6 +1815,365 @@ test_hash_add_delete_jhash_3word(void)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static struct rte_hash *g_handle;
>> +static struct rte_rcu_qsbr *g_qsv;
>> +static volatile uint8_t writer_done;
>> +struct flow_key g_rand_keys[9];
>> +/*
>> + * rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add positive and negative tests.
>> + * - Add RCU QSBR variable to Hash
>> + * - Add another RCU QSBR variable to Hash
>> + * - Check returns
>> + */
>> +static int
>> +test_hash_rcu_qsbr_add(void)
>> +{
>> + size_t sz;
>> + struct rte_rcu_qsbr *qsv2 = NULL;
>> + int32_t status;
>> + struct rte_hash_rcu_config rcu_cfg = {0};
>> +
>> + struct rte_hash_parameters params;
>> +
>> + printf("\n# Running RCU QSBR add tests\n");
>> + memcpy(¶ms, &ut_params, sizeof(params));
>> + params.name = "test_hash_rcu_qsbr_add";
>> + params.extra_flag = RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY_LF
>> |
>> +
>> RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
>> + g_handle = rte_hash_create(¶ms);
>> + RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(g_handle == NULL, "Hash creation
>> failed");
>> +
>> + /* Create RCU QSBR variable */
>> + sz = rte_rcu_qsbr_get_memsize(RTE_MAX_LCORE);
>> + g_qsv = (struct rte_rcu_qsbr *)rte_zmalloc_socket(NULL, sz,
>> + RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE,
>> SOCKET_ID_ANY);
>> + RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(g_qsv == NULL,
>> + "RCU QSBR variable creation failed");
>> +
>> + status = rte_rcu_qsbr_init(g_qsv, RTE_MAX_LCORE);
> [Wang, Yipeng] It reminds me that could we hide this function in the
> rte_cuckoo_hash.c as well?
> I saw most of the rcu related functions are hidden in the hash
> implementation, it would be less confusing if we hide this one as well.
Yes, I think this can be hidden within rte_hash_reset() and
rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add()
>
>> + RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(status != 0,
>> + "RCU QSBR variable initialization failed");
>> +
>> + rcu_cfg.v = g_qsv;
>> + /* Invalid QSBR mode */
>> + rcu_cfg.mode = 2;
> [Wang, Yipeng] Any other way rather than hardcode 2 here? Maybe just a large
> number like 0xff?
Yes, I can use 0xxff
>
>> + status = rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add(g_handle, &rcu_cfg);
>> + RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(status == 0, "Invalid QSBR mode test
>> +failed");
>> +
>> + rcu_cfg.mode = RTE_HASH_QSBR_MODE_DQ;
> [Wang, Yipeng] This reminds me that if there is an explanation on the
> difference of the two modes for users to easy to choose?
It is available within rte_hash.h
>
>
>> + /* Attach RCU QSBR to hash table */
>> + status = rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add(g_handle, &rcu_cfg);
>> + RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(status != 0,
>> + "Attach RCU QSBR to hash table failed");
>> +
>> + /* Create and attach another RCU QSBR to hash table */
>> + qsv2 = (struct rte_rcu_qsbr *)rte_zmalloc_socket(NULL, sz,
>> + RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE,
>> SOCKET_ID_ANY);
>> + RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(qsv2 == NULL,
>> + "RCU QSBR variable creation failed");
>> +
>> + rcu_cfg.v = qsv2;
>> + rcu_cfg.mode = RTE_HASH_QSBR_MODE_SYNC;
>> + status = rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add(g_handle, &rcu_cfg);
>> + rte_free(qsv2);
>> + RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(status == 0,
>> + "Attach RCU QSBR to hash table succeeded where
>> failure"
>> + " is expected");
>> +
>> + rte_hash_free(g_handle);
>> + rte_free(g_qsv);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
> <...>
