On 7 September 2015 at 11:45, Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org
<mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org>> wrote:
Petri,
Maybe this peace of code should migrate to some other place,
but on my opinion it has more common with time API then cpu API.
The table to check time table mixes time/cycles with timer API example, and
it
is confusing a little. Here it doesn't bear any sense except time API has
something
common with timer API, but that's not true.
I agree that the code shouldn't be in the timer example. If anything, we could
print the conversion from ns to timer ticks in the example.
Maybe it can be deleted at all, just want to leave it somewhere.
On 03.09.15 11:50, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
The linux-generic implements timers supposing that timers are based
on CPU cycle counter. It's not always true and timer API can have
nothing common with CPU cycles. Thus timer test shouldn't print
here conversion cycles/ns table for time API.
Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org
<mailto:ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org>>
---
I'm not sure about moving the table to validation test, but it can
be useful to visually see resolution impact.
This patch should be included in
"odp-lng] [Patch 0/4] preparation series before updating odp time API"
https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/lng-odp/2015-August/014850.html
But before let's clarify it.
example/timer/odp_timer_test.c | 21 ---------------------
test/validation/time/time.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/example/timer/odp_timer_test.c
b/example/timer/odp_timer_test.c
index 49630b0..6248939 100644
--- a/example/timer/odp_timer_test.c
+++ b/example/timer/odp_timer_test.c
@@ -322,7 +322,6 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
odph_linux_pthread_t thread_tbl[MAX_WORKERS];
int num_workers;
odp_queue_t queue;
- uint64_t cycles, ns;
odp_queue_param_t param;
odp_pool_param_t params;
odp_timer_pool_param_t tparams;
@@ -446,26 +445,6 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
return -1;
}
- printf("CPU freq %"PRIu64" Hz\n", odp_sys_cpu_hz());
- printf("Cycles vs nanoseconds:\n");
- ns = 0;
- cycles = odp_time_ns_to_cycles(ns);
-
- printf(" %12"PRIu64" ns -> %12"PRIu64" cycles\n", ns,
cycles);
- printf(" %12"PRIu64" cycles -> %12"PRIu64" ns\n", cycles,
- odp_time_cycles_to_ns(cycles));
-
- for (ns = 1; ns <= 100*ODP_TIME_SEC; ns *= 10) {
- cycles = odp_time_ns_to_cycles(ns);
-
- printf(" %12"PRIu64" ns -> %12"PRIu64"
cycles\n", ns,
- cycles);
- printf(" %12"PRIu64" cycles -> %12"PRIu64" ns\n",
cycles,
- odp_time_cycles_to_ns(cycles));
- }
-
- printf("\n");
-
gbls->num_workers = num_workers;
/* Initialize number of timeouts to receive */
diff --git a/test/validation/time/time.c b/test/validation/time/time.c
index 4b81c2c..ae5e77c 100644
--- a/test/validation/time/time.c
+++ b/test/validation/time/time.c
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ void time_test_odp_cycles_negative_diff(void)
/* check that related conversions come back to the same value */
void time_test_odp_time_conversion(void)
{
- uint64_t ns1, ns2, cycles;
+ uint64_t ns, ns1, ns2, cycles;
uint64_t upper_limit, lower_limit;
ns1 = 100;
@@ -59,6 +59,25 @@ void time_test_odp_time_conversion(void)
upper_limit = ns1 + TOLERANCE;
lower_limit = ns1 - TOLERANCE;
CU_ASSERT((ns2 <= upper_limit) && (ns2 >= lower_limit));
+
+ printf("Cycles vs nanoseconds:\n");
+ ns = 0;
+ cycles = odp_time_ns_to_cycles(ns);
+
+ printf(" %12" PRIu64 " ns -> %12" PRIu64 " cycles\n",
ns, cycles);
+ printf(" %12" PRIu64 " cycles -> %12" PRIu64 " ns\n", cycles,
+ odp_time_cycles_to_ns(cycles));
+
+ for (ns = 1; ns <= 100 * ODP_TIME_SEC; ns *= 10) {
+ cycles = odp_time_ns_to_cycles(ns);
+
+ printf(" %12" PRIu64 " ns -> %12" PRIu64 "
cycles\n", ns,
+ cycles);
+ printf(" %12" PRIu64 " cycles -> %12" PRIu64 "
ns\n", cycles,
+ odp_time_cycles_to_ns(cycles));
+ }
+
+ printf("\n");
Creating a new validation test is a different thing (and thus a different
patch). Also the code above doesn't actually validate anything (there is no
CU_ASSERT etc), it just prints some information that might be useful for a
human observer. Is it useful?
