On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22:04PM -0500, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > From: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com> > > Unit tests to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf > with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled. > Unit tests performed with readers running in parallel with writers. > > Tests include: > > - hash lookup on existing keys with: > - hash add causing NO key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > - hash lookup on existing keys likely to be on shift-path with: > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > - hash lookup on existing keys NOT likely to be on shift-path with: > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > - hash lookup on non-existing keys with: > - hash add causing NO key-shifts of existing keys in the table > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > - hash lookup on keys likely to be on shift-path with: > - multiple writers causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table > > Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thak...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Yipeng Wang <yipeng1.w...@intel.com> > ---
Does this need to be done via a completely new test case? Given the number of unit tests for the hash table structure, I'm wondering if we can consolidate things a bit. Any thoughts? /Bruce
