HI Olivier,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:30 PM
> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] test/test: support default mempool autotest
>
> Hi Shreyansh,
[Hemant] I will just proxy him for his next few off days 😊
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:47:49 +0530, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>
> wrote:
> > Mempool test currently supports:
> > * ring_mp_mc
> > * stack
> >
> > In case a new mempool handler is added, there are multiple options for
> > supporting that in the mempool autotest:
> > 1. Like the patch below, adding a new default pool options
> > So, ring* + stack + default (which can be 'stack' or 'ring')
> > * This way, whatever the value of RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS is
> set,
> > it would be verified.
> > * even if that means duplicating some test (for example when "stack" is
> > set as default and it already part of standard test)
> >
> > 2. Removing stack handler as standard, and moving only to one specified
> > by RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS (+ existing ring*)
> > * It still leaves space for duplication of ring_mp_mc in case that is
> > set to default (as in case of master tree)
> >
> > 3. Iterating over the list of mempool handlers and performing a set
> > or predefined tests
> > * reqiures quite a lot of rewrite of mempool autotest
> > * specially, allowing some special tests (cache/no-cache) cases when
> > a set of variables in loop are being used, would be tricky
> >
> > 4. only checking the default pool set by RTE_* macro
> > * In case a user has build DPDK using a configured value, probably it
> > expected that application (or custom applications) would use that
> > default handler.
> > * would also mean that non-default (non RTE_* value) would not be tested
> > even though they are being used.
> >
> > The decision above would impact how new mempool handlers are added and
> > how their testing (API verification) can be done without impacting the
> > mempool_autotest file everytime.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>
>
> I'd prefer 3-, it looks to be the most complete.
> But I think 1- is ok for now.
[Hemant] Thanks for quick review, We will send patch for #1 now, and try to
attempt #3 next.
>
> >
> > ---
> > test/test/test_mempool.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/test/test/test_mempool.c b/test/test/test_mempool.c index
> > b9880b3..aefbf80 100644
> > --- a/test/test/test_mempool.c
> > +++ b/test/test/test_mempool.c
> > @@ -509,9 +509,11 @@ walk_cb(struct rte_mempool *mp, void *userdata
> > __rte_unused) static int
> > test_mempool(void)
> > {
> > + int ret = -1;
> > struct rte_mempool *mp_cache = NULL;
> > struct rte_mempool *mp_nocache = NULL;
> > struct rte_mempool *mp_stack = NULL;
> > + struct rte_mempool *default_pool = NULL;
> >
> > rte_atomic32_init(&synchro);
> >
> > @@ -561,6 +563,30 @@ test_mempool(void)
> > }
> > rte_mempool_obj_iter(mp_stack, my_obj_init, NULL);
> >
> > + /* Create a mempool based on Default handler, if not "stack" */
> > + printf("Testing %s mempool handler\n",
> > + RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS);
> > + default_pool = rte_mempool_create_empty("default_pool",
> > + MEMPOOL_SIZE,
> > + MEMPOOL_ELT_SIZE,
> > + RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE, 0,
> > + SOCKET_ID_ANY, 0);
> > +
> > + if (default_pool == NULL) {
> > + printf("cannot allocate default mempool\n");
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > + if (rte_mempool_set_ops_byname(default_pool,
> > + RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS, NULL) < 0) {
> > + printf("cannot set default handler\n");
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > + if (rte_mempool_populate_default(default_pool) < 0) {
> > + printf("cannot populate default mempool\n");
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > + rte_mempool_obj_iter(default_pool, my_obj_init, NULL);
> > +
> > /* retrieve the mempool from its name */
> > if (rte_mempool_lookup("test_nocache") != mp_nocache) {
> > printf("Cannot lookup mempool from its name\n"); @@ -605,15
> +631,20
> > @@ test_mempool(void)
> > if (test_mempool_basic(mp_stack, 1) < 0)
> > goto err;
> >
> > + if (test_mempool_basic(default_pool, 1) < 0)
> > + goto err;
> > +
> > rte_mempool_list_dump(stdout);
> >
> > - return 0;
> > + ret = 0;
>
> looks it also fixes a memory leak :)
> Can you please move the fix in another patch?
[Hemant] OK.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Olivier
