On 10/26/20 10:30 AM, Chautru, Nicolas wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 5:56 AM
>> To: Chautru, Nicolas <nicolas.chau...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> akhil.go...@nxp.com
>> Cc: david.march...@redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] app/bbdev: add explicit ut for latency vs
>> validation
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/20 4:42 PM, Nicolas Chautru wrote:
>>> Adding explicit different ut when testing for validation or latency
>>> (early termination enabled or not).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chau...@intel.com>
>>> Acked-by: Aidan Goddard <aidan.godd...@accelercomm.com>
>>> Acked-by: Dave Burley <dave.bur...@accelercomm.com>
>>> ---
>>> app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 92
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> Should update the copyright.
>>> 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> index 6e5535d..3554a77 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c
>>> @@ -3999,12 +3999,14 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>> return i;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/* Test case for latency/validation for LDPC Decoder */
>>> static int
>>> latency_test_ldpc_dec(struct rte_mempool *mempool,
>>> struct test_buffers *bufs, struct rte_bbdev_dec_op *ref_op,
>>> int vector_mask, uint16_t dev_id, uint16_t queue_id,
>>> const uint16_t num_to_process, uint16_t burst_sz,
>>> - uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t
>> *max_time)
>>> + uint64_t *total_time, uint64_t *min_time, uint64_t
>> *max_time,
>>> + bool disable_et)
>>> {
>>> int ret = TEST_SUCCESS;
>>> uint16_t i, j, dequeued;
>>> @@ -4026,7 +4028,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>> "rte_bbdev_dec_op_alloc_bulk() failed");
>>>
>>> /* For latency tests we need to disable early termination */
>>> - if (check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
>>> + if (disable_et && check_bit(ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags,
>>>
>> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE))
>>> ref_op->ldpc_dec.op_flags -=
>>>
>> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_ITERATION_STOP_ENABLE;
>> Bit clearing is usually done with &= ~()
> This is the coding style for rest of the file hence sticking to it.
>
>>> @@ -4248,7 +4250,7 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>> active_device *ad,
>>> TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u",
>> op_type);
>>> printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
>>> - printf("== test: validation/latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops:
>> %u, op type: %s\n",
>>> + printf("== test: latency\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op
>>> +type: %s\n",
>>> info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process,
>> op_type_str);
>>> if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC) @@ -4270,7 +4272,83
>> @@
>>> typedef int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>>> iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params-
>>> vector_mask,
>>> ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
>>> + burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time,
>> &max_time,
>>> + true);
>>> + else
>>> + iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> + op_params->ref_enc_op,
>>> + ad->dev_id, queue_id,
>>> + num_to_process, burst_sz,
>> &total_time,
>>> + &min_time, &max_time);
>> This is a repeat of RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC.
>>
>> Do not need both.
> Fair enough. That is part of previous code but can simplify.
>
>> If the point is to have a else and not fail when the op_type is unknown, then
>>
>> remove the earlier all and comment the else something like
>>
>> else /* RTE_BBDEC_OP_TURBO_ENC */
>>
>>> +
>>> + if (iter <= 0)
>>> + return TEST_FAILED;
>>> +
>>> + printf("Operation latency:\n"
>>> + "\tavg: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
>>> + "\tmin: %lg cycles, %lg us\n"
>>> + "\tmax: %lg cycles, %lg us\n",
>>> + (double)total_time / (double)iter,
>>> + (double)(total_time * 1000000) / (double)iter /
>>> + (double)rte_get_tsc_hz(), (double)min_time,
>>> + (double)(min_time * 1000000) /
>> (double)rte_get_tsc_hz(),
>>> + (double)max_time, (double)(max_time * 1000000) /
>>> + (double)rte_get_tsc_hz());
>> Could remove a tab from the last 9 lines for better alignment with printf
> I am unsure I follow. The recommended spacing is 2 tabs for continuation and
> unsure how the alignment would be better.
> I typically only reduce to 1 tab only if I have to (80 chars limit becoming
> cumbersome with nested statements).
This is just an observation i don't want to get into the weeds with whitespace
issues.
>
>>> +
>>> + return TEST_SUCCESS;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int
>>> +validation_test(struct active_device *ad,
>>> + struct test_op_params *op_params)
>>> +{
>>> + int iter;
>>> + uint16_t burst_sz = op_params->burst_sz;
>>> + const uint16_t num_to_process = op_params->num_to_process;
>>> + const enum rte_bbdev_op_type op_type = test_vector.op_type;
>>> + const uint16_t queue_id = ad->queue_ids[0];
>>> + struct test_buffers *bufs = NULL;
>>> + struct rte_bbdev_info info;
>>> + uint64_t total_time, min_time, max_time;
>>> + const char *op_type_str;
>>> +
>>> + total_time = max_time = 0;
>>> + min_time = UINT64_MAX;
>>> +
>>> + TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS((burst_sz > MAX_BURST),
>>> + "BURST_SIZE should be <= %u", MAX_BURST);
>>> +
>>> + rte_bbdev_info_get(ad->dev_id, &info);
>>> + bufs = &op_params-
>>> q_bufs[GET_SOCKET(info.socket_id)][queue_id];
>>> +
>>> + op_type_str = rte_bbdev_op_type_str(op_type);
>>> + TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(op_type_str, "Invalid op type: %u",
>> op_type);
>>> +
>>> + printf("+ ------------------------------------------------------- +\n");
>>> + printf("== test: validation\ndev: %s, burst size: %u, num ops: %u, op
>> type: %s\n",
>>> + info.dev_name, burst_sz, num_to_process,
>> op_type_str);
>>> +
>>> + if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_DEC)
>>> + iter = latency_test_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> + op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params-
>>> vector_mask,
>>> + ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
>>> burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time,
>> &max_time);
>>> + else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_TURBO_ENC)
>>> + iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> + op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id,
>> queue_id,
>>> + num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
>>> + &min_time, &max_time);
>>> + else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_ENC)
>>> + iter = latency_test_ldpc_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> + op_params->ref_enc_op, ad->dev_id,
>> queue_id,
>>> + num_to_process, burst_sz, &total_time,
>>> + &min_time, &max_time);
>>> + else if (op_type == RTE_BBDEV_OP_LDPC_DEC)
>>> + iter = latency_test_ldpc_dec(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> + op_params->ref_dec_op, op_params-
>>> vector_mask,
>>> + ad->dev_id, queue_id, num_to_process,
>>> + burst_sz, &total_time, &min_time,
>> &max_time,
>>> + false);
>> This 'false' is the only change from f latency_test.
>>
>> These should be refactored to a common function. Then use a #define or
>> similar wrapper for calling with/without this flag.
> Fair enough. Thanks. I will push an update later today.
Thanks. This was the only serious thing in the patchset.
Tom
>
>> Tom
>>
>>> else
>>> iter = latency_test_enc(op_params->mp, bufs,
>>> op_params->ref_enc_op,
>>> @@ -4930,6 +5008,12 @@ typedef int (test_case_function)(struct
>>> active_device *ad, }
>>>
>>> static int
>>> +validation_tc(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return run_test_case(validation_test); }
>>> +
>>> +static int
>>> interrupt_tc(void)
>>> {
>>> return run_test_case(throughput_test); @@ -4960,7 +5044,7 @@
>> typedef
>>> int (test_case_function)(struct active_device *ad,
>>> .setup = testsuite_setup,
>>> .teardown = testsuite_teardown,
>>> .unit_test_cases = {
>>> - TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, latency_tc),
>>> + TEST_CASE_ST(ut_setup, ut_teardown, validation_tc),
>>> TEST_CASES_END() /**< NULL terminate unit test array */
>>> }
>>> };
