@@ -65,8 +65,8 @@ struct plock_test { */ struct lcore_plock_test { struct plock_test *pt[2]; /* shared, lock-protected data */ - uint32_t sum[2]; /* local copy of the shared data */ - uint32_t iter; /* number of iterations to perfom */ + uint64_t sum[2]; /* local copy of the shared data */ + uint64_t iter; /* number of iterations to perfom */ uint32_t lc; /* given lcore id */ };Not sure why you think this is needed - right now both iter and sum wouldn't be bigger than 32bit (max value that sum can reach: 2^27).
I view test_barrier and other tools in the test directory as functional test tools for developers. My understanding is that they are not typically run as part of DTS or any other validation process (please let me know if that is incorrect). As a result, a developer that is testing this functionality might have a valid reason to alter the value of ITER_MAX for a specific functional test.
While validating the changes in patch 4 of the series I needed to run more that 2^27 iterations. I encountered situations where some runs of my test code would fail and other runs would pass when using the default ITER_MAX value. As a result, I needed to extend the number of iterations tested to gain confidence in the final fix for Power systems. At the end, I was running 64 billion iterations (MAX_ITER = 0xF_0000_0000) across 64 Power 9 lcores which takes ~16 hours.
I felt the patch to extend these values to 64 bit might benefit other developers in the future. And since the cost is low (this is not EAL library code pulled into every user application) there's no harm in making the change.
- printf("%s: sum[%u]=%u, pt[%u].val=%u, pt[%u].iter=%u;\n", + printf("%s: sum[%u]=%lu, pt[%u].val=%lu, pt[%u].iter=%lu;\n",Here and in other places, you need to use PRIu64 for 64 bit values.
Ok. I'll resubmit if there are no objections to the rationale behind the change.
Dave
