> This isn't really a test, imho. There are no assert()s. How does a > developer who > tries to fix a bug in this area know what is acceptable? > > Please switch the printf()s to RTE_LOG calls, and add some RTE_TEST_ASSERT > calls to enforce some time range at the least. > Otherwise this test will not really be checking the performance - just giving > a > report somewhere.
I just followed DPDK naming convention of test_xxx_perf.c / xxx_perf_autotest. They all should really be called benchmarks. They help developers to see how the code changes affect performance. I don't understand how this "perf test" is not in line with existing ones and where it should properly reside. I'm not totally opposed to replacing printf() with RTE_LOG(), but all other test use printf(). The drawback of the change is inconsistency, what is the benefit? > Also, I don't understand the way the memset test works here. You do one large > memset at the very beginning and then extrapolate the time it would take. > Does > that hold any value or should we do a memset in each iteration and enforce a > scaled time? As explained above, we don't need to enforce anything, we want a report. I've never seen a case with one NUMA node where memset() time would not scale linearly, but benchmarks should be precise so I'll change it to memset()'ing the allocated area, thanks.
