Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] test/hash: rectify slaveid to point to valid cores

[Dharmik Thakkar <Dharmik.Thakkar@arm.com>]

Hi David,

Thank you for your comments!

> On Jun 1, 2019, at 10:59 AM, David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 1:28 AM Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com> wrote:
> This patch rectifies slave_id passed to rte_eal_wait_lcore()
> to point to valid cores in read-write lock-free concurrency test.
> 
> It also replaces a 'for' loop with RTE_LCORE_FOREACH API.
> 
> Fixes: dfd9d5537e876 ("test/hash: use existing lcore API")
> 
> This incriminated commit only converts direct access to lcore_config into call to rte_eal_wait_lcore.
> So it did not introduce the issue you want to fix.
> 
> The Fixes: tag should probably be:
> Fixes: c7eb0972e74b ("test/hash: add lock-free r/w concurrency”)
Yes, you are essentially correct. However, 'git blame' pointed to dfd9d5537e876 ("test/hash: use existing lcore API”).
> 
> 
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> ---
>  app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c
> index 343a338b4ea8..af1ee9c34394 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf.c
> @@ -126,11 +126,9 @@ get_enabled_cores_list(void)
>         uint32_t i = 0;
>         uint16_t core_id;
>         uint32_t max_cores = rte_lcore_count();
> -       for (core_id = 0; core_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE && i < max_cores; core_id++) {
> -               if (rte_lcore_is_enabled(core_id)) {
> -                       enabled_core_ids[i] = core_id;
> -                       i++;
> -               }
> +       RTE_LCORE_FOREACH(core_id) {
> +               enabled_core_ids[i] = core_id;
> +               i++;
>         }
> 
>         if (i != max_cores) {
> @@ -738,7 +736,7 @@ test_hash_add_no_ks_lookup_hit(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf,
>                                                         enabled_core_ids[i]);
> 
>                         for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> -                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> +                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
>                                         goto err;
> 
>                         unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -810,7 +808,7 @@ test_hash_add_no_ks_lookup_miss(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf,
>                         if (ret < 0)
>                                 goto err;
>                         for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> -                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> +                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
>                                         goto err;
> 
>                         unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -886,7 +884,7 @@ test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_non_sp(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results,
>                         if (ret < 0)
>                                 goto err;
>                         for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> -                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> +                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
>                                         goto err;
> 
>                         unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -962,7 +960,7 @@ test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_sp(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf,
>                         if (ret < 0)
>                                 goto err;
>                         for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> -                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> +                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
>                                         goto err;
> 
>                         unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -1037,7 +1035,7 @@ test_hash_add_ks_lookup_miss(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf, int
>                         if (ret < 0)
>                                 goto err;
>                         for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> -                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> +                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
>                                         goto err;
> 
>                         unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> @@ -1132,12 +1130,12 @@ test_hash_multi_add_lookup(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results, int rwc_lf,
>                                 for (i = rwc_core_cnt[n] + 1;
>                                      i <= rwc_core_cnt[m] + rwc_core_cnt[n];
>                                      i++)
> -                                       rte_eal_wait_lcore(i);
> +                                       rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]);
> 
>                                 writer_done = 1;
> 
>                                 for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> -                                       if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> +                                       if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
>                                                 goto err;
> 
>                                 unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> 
> Checkpatch complains here.
I believe you are referring to the warning of line over 80 characters in Line 1138. I think it should be fine.
> 
> 
> @@ -1221,7 +1219,7 @@ test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_extbkt(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results,
>                         writer_done = 1;
> 
>                         for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
> -                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(i) < 0)
> +                               if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
>                                         goto err;
> 
>                         unsigned long long cycles_per_lookup =
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 
> The rest looks good to me.
> 
> We have accumulated quite some fixes with Michael on app/test.
> Do you mind if I take your patch as part of our series?
Please, go ahead.
> I would change the Fixes: tag, fix the checkpatch warning, and send it next week.
I am not sure about this. Do we simply go by 'git blame' or insert the commit that truly introduced the error?
> 
> Bon week-end.
Thank you! You have a great week ahead.
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Marchand