Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
On 01/22/2015 12:06 PM, Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: -Original Message- From: lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:lng-odp- boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext Ciprian Barbu Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:36 PM To: Ola Liljedahl Cc: lng-odp Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0 We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though. Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP. The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0, but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for at least 0.7 and 0.8? There are no plans to change schedule pause/resume API. -Petri So we are adding this patch, right? Maxim. ___ lng-odp mailing list lng-odp@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp ___ lng-odp mailing list lng-odp@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
On 21 January 2015 at 06:23, Jerin Jacob jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:25:41PM -0600, Bill Fischofer wrote: My questions were answered. For now scheduling caches are non-transparent and applications wishing to pause scheduling must drain any cached events prior to exiting the scheduling loop. We can revisit this post v1.0 when we discuss various recovery scenarios. +1 ++ On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: It is still not clear to me in writing that we want this, we did discuss it earlier but Jerin, Bill and Ola have questions on this thread and I am not sure they are all addressed. On 20 January 2015 at 16:34, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: Who review this patch please add review-by. Mike please add yours because it's validation patch. Maxim. On 01/20/2015 05:23 PM, Ciprian Barbu wrote: PING! On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been on the list for a month On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0 We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though. Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP. The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0, but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for at least 0.7 and 0.8? On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call. On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0 and needs to be in the delta doc ? On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is definitely something we need to address. My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause() should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent and moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since who knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since otherwise the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the first place. Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give a brief update on what was decided? On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote: Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org --- test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63 ++ 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644 --- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c +++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c @@ -11,9 +11,11 @@ #define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024) #define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16 #define BUF_SIZE 64 -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100 +#define NUM_BUFS 100 #define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4 -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1 +#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1 +#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000 +#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10 #define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals #define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool @@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t sync, int num_queues, args.sync = sync; args.num_queues = num_queues; args.num_prio = num_prio; - args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS; + args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS; args.num_cores = 1; args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi; args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single core */ @@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t sync, int num_queues, thr_args-num_queues = num_queues; thr_args-num_prio = num_prio; if (enable_excl_atomic) - thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL; +
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
Petri you are the scheduling expert, can we get your review, otherwise as a validation test I can review it with less deep understanding. On 21 January 2015 at 07:55, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: On 21 January 2015 at 06:23, Jerin Jacob jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:25:41PM -0600, Bill Fischofer wrote: My questions were answered. For now scheduling caches are non-transparent and applications wishing to pause scheduling must drain any cached events prior to exiting the scheduling loop. We can revisit this post v1.0 when we discuss various recovery scenarios. +1 ++ On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: It is still not clear to me in writing that we want this, we did discuss it earlier but Jerin, Bill and Ola have questions on this thread and I am not sure they are all addressed. On 20 January 2015 at 16:34, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: Who review this patch please add review-by. Mike please add yours because it's validation patch. Maxim. On 01/20/2015 05:23 PM, Ciprian Barbu wrote: PING! On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been on the list for a month On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0 We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though. Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP. The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0, but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for at least 0.7 and 0.8? On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call. On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0 and needs to be in the delta doc ? On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is definitely something we need to address. My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause() should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent and moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since who knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since otherwise the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the first place. Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give a brief update on what was decided? On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote: Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org --- test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63 ++ 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644 --- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c +++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c @@ -11,9 +11,11 @@ #define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024) #define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16 #define BUF_SIZE 64 -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100 +#define NUM_BUFS 100 #define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4 -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1 +#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1 +#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000 +#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10 #define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals #define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool @@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t sync, int num_queues, args.sync = sync; args.num_queues = num_queues; args.num_prio = num_prio; - args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS; + args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS; args.num_cores = 1; args.enable_schd_multi =
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
PING!
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been on
the list for a month
On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though.
Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP.
The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I
didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0,
but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for
at least 0.7 and 0.8?
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important
for
1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's
a
poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is
definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a
odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is
using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly
transparent
and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing
since
who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since
otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the
first
place.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give
a brief update on what was decided?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu
ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void
schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a
single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void
parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool !=
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
Petri unless you don't think this fits I suggest we apply it to test what
is in the repo now
On 20 January 2015 at 09:23, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
PING!
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has
been on
the list for a month
On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl
ola.liljed...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though.
Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP.
The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I
didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0,
but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for
at least 0.7 and 0.8?
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes
mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important
for
1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here,
it's
a
poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is
definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a
odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is
using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly
transparent
and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing
since
who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief
since
otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in
the
first
place.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you
give
a brief update on what was decided?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu
ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu
wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void
schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a
single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void
parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
Who review this patch please add review-by.
Mike please add yours because it's validation patch.
Maxim.
On 01/20/2015 05:23 PM, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
PING!
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been on
the list for a month
On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though.
Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP.
The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I
didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0,
but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for
at least 0.7 and 0.8?
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important
for
1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's
a
poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is
definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a
odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is
using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly
transparent
and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing
since
who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since
otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the
first
place.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give
a brief update on what was decided?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu
ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void
schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a
single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void
parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
+ CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
+ odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
It is still not clear to me in writing that we want this, we did discuss it
earlier but Jerin, Bill and Ola have questions on this thread and I am not
sure they are all addressed.
On 20 January 2015 at 16:34, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
Who review this patch please add review-by.
Mike please add yours because it's validation patch.
Maxim.
On 01/20/2015 05:23 PM, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
PING!
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has
been on
the list for a month
On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl
ola.liljed...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though.
Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP.
The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I
didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0,
but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for
at least 0.7 and 0.8?
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important
for
1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's
a
poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is
definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a
odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is
using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly
transparent
and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing
since
who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since
otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the
first
place.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you
give
a brief update on what was decided?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu
ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void
schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a
single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void
parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
My questions were answered. For now scheduling caches are non-transparent and applications wishing to pause scheduling must drain any cached events prior to exiting the scheduling loop. We can revisit this post v1.0 when we discuss various recovery scenarios. On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: It is still not clear to me in writing that we want this, we did discuss it earlier but Jerin, Bill and Ola have questions on this thread and I am not sure they are all addressed. On 20 January 2015 at 16:34, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: Who review this patch please add review-by. Mike please add yours because it's validation patch. Maxim. On 01/20/2015 05:23 PM, Ciprian Barbu wrote: PING! On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been on the list for a month On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0 We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though. Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP. The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0, but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for at least 0.7 and 0.8? On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call. On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0 and needs to be in the delta doc ? On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is definitely something we need to address. My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause() should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent and moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since who knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since otherwise the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the first place. Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give a brief update on what was decided? On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote: Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org --- test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63 ++ 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644 --- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c +++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c @@ -11,9 +11,11 @@ #define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024) #define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16 #define BUF_SIZE 64 -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100 +#define NUM_BUFS 100 #define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4 -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1 +#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1 +#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000 +#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10 #define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals #define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool @@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t sync, int num_queues, args.sync = sync; args.num_queues = num_queues; args.num_prio = num_prio; - args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS; + args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS; args.num_cores = 1; args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi; args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single core */ @@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t sync, int num_queues, thr_args-num_queues = num_queues; thr_args-num_prio = num_prio; if (enable_excl_atomic) - thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL; + thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL; else - thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS; + thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS; thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count; thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi; thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic; @@ -459,6
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:25:41PM -0600, Bill Fischofer wrote: My questions were answered. For now scheduling caches are non-transparent and applications wishing to pause scheduling must drain any cached events prior to exiting the scheduling loop. We can revisit this post v1.0 when we discuss various recovery scenarios. +1 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: It is still not clear to me in writing that we want this, we did discuss it earlier but Jerin, Bill and Ola have questions on this thread and I am not sure they are all addressed. On 20 January 2015 at 16:34, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote: Who review this patch please add review-by. Mike please add yours because it's validation patch. Maxim. On 01/20/2015 05:23 PM, Ciprian Barbu wrote: PING! On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been on the list for a month On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote: On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0 We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though. Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP. The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0, but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for at least 0.7 and 0.8? On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call. On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote: Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0 and needs to be in the delta doc ? On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote: Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is definitely something we need to address. My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause() should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent and moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since who knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since otherwise the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the first place. Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give a brief update on what was decided? On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote: Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org --- test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63 ++ 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644 --- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c +++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c @@ -11,9 +11,11 @@ #define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024) #define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16 #define BUF_SIZE 64 -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100 +#define NUM_BUFS 100 #define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4 -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1 +#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1 +#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000 +#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10 #define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals #define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool @@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t sync, int num_queues, args.sync = sync; args.num_queues = num_queues; args.num_prio = num_prio; - args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS; + args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS; args.num_cores = 1; args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi; args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single core */ @@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t sync, int num_queues, thr_args-num_queues = num_queues; thr_args-num_prio = num_prio; if (enable_excl_atomic) - thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL; + thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL; else - thr_args-num_bufs =
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been
on the list for a month
On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though.
Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP.
The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I
didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0,
but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for
at least 0.7 and 0.8?
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for
1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's
a
poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is
definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a
odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is
using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly
transparent
and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing
since
who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since
otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the
first
place.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give
a brief update on what was decided?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu
ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void
schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a
single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void
parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf =
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
Still abit unclear after the discussion we had with Petri, but I think
we need to keep the behavior as it is, meaning applications need to
take care of the scheduling cache, and consume everything after
issuing an odp_schedule_pause call. This would also mean my test case
behaves as expected.
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for
1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a
poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is
definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a
odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent
and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since
who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since
otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the
first
place.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give
a brief update on what was decided?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu
ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void
schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void
parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
+ CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
+ odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+
+ odp_schedule_pause();
+
+ while (1) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from,
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
That certainly seems to be the upshot for now from yesterday's
discussions. Whether this is something that will persist longer-term
remains to be seen.
The net is that if you want to pause there a certain amount of choreography
that the application needs to do to perform such role-switching in a
graceful manner. A good reason, perhaps, to consider designing the
application so that pauses are not needed.
We still need to discuss how to deal with potentially cached work if we
want to be able to support a more robust programming model in which
threads/processes can fail without killing the entire application.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
Still abit unclear after the discussion we had with Petri, but I think
we need to keep the behavior as it is, meaning applications need to
take care of the scheduling cache, and consume everything after
issuing an odp_schedule_pause call. This would also mean my test case
behaves as expected.
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for
1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a
poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is
definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a
odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using
a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly
transparent
and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since
who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since
otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the
first
place.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give
a brief update on what was decided?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu
ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void
schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a
single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void
parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the first
place.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give
a brief update on what was decided?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
+ CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
+ odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+
+ odp_schedule_pause();
+
+ while (1) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ if (buf == ODP_BUFFER_INVALID)
+ break;
+
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ local_bufs++;
+ }
+
+ CU_ASSERT(local_bufs NUM_BUFS_PAUSE - NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE);
Whats is the expected behavior here, Shouldn't it be
CU_ASSERT(local_bufs == 0) ?
meaning, the complete pause ?
Sorry about the delay, I've been playing around with mutt and I must
have accidentally marked this email as read.
The explanation here is that after pausing the scheduling, there might
still be locally reserved buffers (see the
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a
poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is
definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a
odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent
and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since
who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since
otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the
first
place.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give
a brief update on what was decided?
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu
ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void
parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
+ CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
+ odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+
+ odp_schedule_pause();
+
+ while (1) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ if (buf == ODP_BUFFER_INVALID)
+ break;
+
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ local_bufs++;
+ }
+
+ CU_ASSERT(local_bufs NUM_BUFS_PAUSE -
NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE);
Whats is the expected behavior here, Shouldn't it be
CU_ASSERT(local_bufs == 0) ?
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t sync,
int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t sync,
int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
+ CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
+ odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+
+ odp_schedule_pause();
+
+ while (1) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ if (buf == ODP_BUFFER_INVALID)
+ break;
+
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ local_bufs++;
+ }
+
+ CU_ASSERT(local_bufs NUM_BUFS_PAUSE - NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE);
Whats is the expected behavior here, Shouldn't it be CU_ASSERT(local_bufs ==
0) ?
meaning, the complete pause ?
Sorry about the delay, I've been playing around with mutt and I must
have accidentally marked this email as read.
The explanation here is that after pausing the scheduling, there might
still be locally reserved buffers (see the odp_schedule_pause
documentation). For linux-generic for instance the scheduler dequeues
buffers in bursts, odp_scheduler_pause only stops further dequeues,
buffers may still be in the 'reservoirs'. With that in mind, the check
above makes sure that after pausing only a limited number of packets
are still scheduled, or else said pausing seems to work, not all
packets being drained.
+
+ odp_schedule_resume();
+
+ for (i = local_bufs + NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+}
+
static int create_queues(void)
{
int i, j, prios;
@@ -594,6 +646,7 @@ struct CU_TestInfo test_odp_schedule[] = {
{schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_a, test_schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_a},
{schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_o, test_schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_o},
{schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl, test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl},
+ {schedule_pause_resume, test_schedule_pause_resume},
CU_TEST_INFO_NULL,
};
--
1.8.3.2
___
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
___
lng-odp mailing list
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the first
place.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single core
*/
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
+ CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
+ odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+
+ odp_schedule_pause();
+
+ while (1) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ if (buf == ODP_BUFFER_INVALID)
+ break;
+
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ local_bufs++;
+ }
+
+ CU_ASSERT(local_bufs NUM_BUFS_PAUSE - NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE);
Whats is the expected behavior here, Shouldn't it be
CU_ASSERT(local_bufs == 0) ?
meaning, the complete pause ?
Sorry about the delay, I've been playing around with mutt and I must
have accidentally marked this email as read.
The explanation here is that after pausing the scheduling, there might
still be locally reserved buffers (see the odp_schedule_pause
documentation). For linux-generic for instance the scheduler dequeues
buffers in bursts, odp_scheduler_pause only stops further dequeues,
buffers may still be in the 'reservoirs'. With that in mind, the check
above makes sure that after pausing only a limited number of packets
are still scheduled, or else said pausing seems to
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the first
place.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single core
*/
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
+ CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
+ odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+
+ odp_schedule_pause();
+
+ while (1) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ if (buf == ODP_BUFFER_INVALID)
+ break;
+
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ local_bufs++;
+ }
+
+ CU_ASSERT(local_bufs NUM_BUFS_PAUSE - NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE);
Whats is the expected behavior here, Shouldn't it be
CU_ASSERT(local_bufs == 0) ?
meaning, the complete pause ?
Sorry about the delay, I've been playing around with mutt and I must
have accidentally marked this email as read.
The explanation here is that after pausing the scheduling, there might
still be locally reserved buffers (see the odp_schedule_pause
documentation). For linux-generic for instance the scheduler dequeues
buffers in bursts, odp_scheduler_pause only stops further dequeues,
buffers may still be in the 'reservoirs'. With that in mind, the check
above makes sure that after pausing only a limited number of packets
are still scheduled, or else said pausing seems to work, not all
packets being drained.
+
+ odp_schedule_resume();
+
+ for (i = local_bufs + NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE;
i++) {
+ buf =
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a
scheduling cache. That way any cache being used is truly transparent and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since who
knows how long a pause may last? Clearly it won't be brief since otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the first
place.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single
core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
sync, int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void
test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
+ CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
+ odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+
+ odp_schedule_pause();
+
+ while (1) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ if (buf == ODP_BUFFER_INVALID)
+ break;
+
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ local_bufs++;
+ }
+
+ CU_ASSERT(local_bufs NUM_BUFS_PAUSE - NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE);
Whats is the expected behavior here, Shouldn't it be
CU_ASSERT(local_bufs == 0) ?
meaning, the complete pause ?
Sorry about the delay, I've been playing around with mutt and I must
have accidentally marked this email as read.
The explanation here is that after pausing the scheduling, there might
still be locally reserved buffers (see the odp_schedule_pause
documentation). For linux-generic for instance the scheduler dequeues
buffers in bursts, odp_scheduler_pause only stops further dequeues,
buffers may still be in the 'reservoirs'. With
Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and odp_schedule_resume tests
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
@@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
#define MSG_POOL_SIZE(4*1024*1024)
#define QUEUES_PER_PRIO 16
#define BUF_SIZE 64
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS100
+#define NUM_BUFS 100
#define BURST_BUF_SIZE 4
-#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL 1
+#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL1
+#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE 1000
+#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE10
#define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME test_globals
#define MSG_POOL_NAMEmsg_pool
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t sync, int
num_queues,
args.sync = sync;
args.num_queues = num_queues;
args.num_prio = num_prio;
- args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
args.num_cores = 1;
args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;/* Not needed with a single core */
@@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t sync,
int num_queues,
thr_args-num_queues = num_queues;
thr_args-num_prio = num_prio;
if (enable_excl_atomic)
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
else
- thr_args-num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
+ thr_args-num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
thr_args-num_cores = globals-core_count;
thr_args-enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
thr_args-enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
@@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
}
+static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
+{
+ odp_queue_t queue;
+ odp_buffer_t buf;
+ odp_queue_t from;
+ int i;
+ int local_bufs = 0;
+
+ queue = odp_queue_lookup(sched_0_0_n);
+ CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
+
+ pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
+ CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
+
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
+ CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
+ odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+
+ odp_schedule_pause();
+
+ while (1) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
+ if (buf == ODP_BUFFER_INVALID)
+ break;
+
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ local_bufs++;
+ }
+
+ CU_ASSERT(local_bufs NUM_BUFS_PAUSE - NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE);
Whats is the expected behavior here, Shouldn't it be CU_ASSERT(local_bufs == 0)
?
meaning, the complete pause ?
+
+ odp_schedule_resume();
+
+ for (i = local_bufs + NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
+ buf = odp_schedule(from, ODP_SCHED_WAIT);
+ CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
+ odp_buffer_free(buf);
+ }
+}
+
static int create_queues(void)
{
int i, j, prios;
@@ -594,6 +646,7 @@ struct CU_TestInfo test_odp_schedule[] = {
{schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_a, test_schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_a},
{schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_o, test_schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_o},
{schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl, test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl},
+ {schedule_pause_resume, test_schedule_pause_resume},
CU_TEST_INFO_NULL,
};
--
1.8.3.2
___
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
___
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
