Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] test/hash: lock-free rw concurrency test ext bkt

["Wang, Yipeng1" <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>]

A little bit improvement on commit-message maybe needed.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dharmik Thakkar [mailto:dharmik.thakkar@arm.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:09 PM
>To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
><bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
>Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] test/hash: lock-free rw concurrency test ext bkt
[Wang, Yipeng] *for* ext bucket
>
>Add unit test to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf.
[Wang, Yipeng] for extendable bucket feature.
>Test with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled.
[Wang, Yipeng] It is tested with both lock-free enabled and disabled case.
>
>Test include:
>
>- hash lookup on keys in ext bkt,
>hash delete causing key-shifts of keys from ext bkt to secondary bkt
[Wang, Yipeng] 
Two test scenarios right? A bit of formatting..
Tests include:
- hash lookup on keys in ext bucket.
- hash delete causing key-shifts of keys from ext bucket to secondary bucket.

>
>Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
>Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar@arm.com>
>---
>+/*
>+ * Test lookup perf:
>+ * Reader(s) lookup keys present in the extendable bkt.
>+ */
>+static int
>+test_hash_add_ks_lookup_hit_extbkt(struct rwc_perf *rwc_perf_results,
>+				int rwc_lf, int htm, int ext_bkt)
>+{
>+	unsigned int n, m;
>+	uint64_t i;
>+	int use_jhash = 0;
>+	uint8_t write_type;
>+	uint8_t read_type = READ_PASS_KEY_SHIFTS_EXTBKT;
>+
>+	rte_atomic64_init(&greads);
>+	rte_atomic64_init(&gread_cycles);
>+
>+	if (init_params(rwc_lf, use_jhash, htm, ext_bkt) != 0)
>+		goto err;
>+	printf("\nTest: Hash add - key-shifts, read - hit (ext_bkt)\n");
>+	for (m = 0; m < 2; m++) {
>+		if (m == 1) {
>+			printf("\n** With bulk-lookup **\n");
>+			read_type |= BULK_LOOKUP;
>+		}
>+		for (n = 0; n < NUM_TEST; n++) {
>+			unsigned int tot_lcore = rte_lcore_count();
>+			if (tot_lcore < rwc_core_cnt[n] + 1)
>+				goto finish;
>+
>+			printf("\nNumber of readers: %u\n", rwc_core_cnt[n]);
>+
>+			rte_atomic64_clear(&greads);
>+			rte_atomic64_clear(&gread_cycles);
>+
>+			rte_hash_reset(tbl_rwc_test_param.h);
>+			write_type = WRITE_NO_KEY_SHIFT;
>+			if (write_keys(write_type) < 0)
>+				goto err;
>+			write_type = WRITE_KEY_SHIFT;
>+			if (write_keys(write_type) < 0)
>+				goto err;
>+			writer_done = 0;
>+			for (i = 1; i <= rwc_core_cnt[n]; i++)
>+				rte_eal_remote_launch(test_rwc_reader,
>+						(void *)(uintptr_t)read_type,
>+							enabled_core_ids[i]);
>+			for (i = 0; i < tbl_rwc_test_param.count_keys_ks_extbkt;
>+			     i++) {
>+				if (rte_hash_del_key(tbl_rwc_test_param.h,
>+					tbl_rwc_test_param.keys_ks_extbkt + i)
>+							< 0) {
>+					printf("Delete Failed: %u\n",
>+					tbl_rwc_test_param.keys_ks_extbkt[i]);
>+					goto err;
>+				}
>+			}
>+			writer_done = 1;
>+			rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();
[Wang, Yipeng] Not requirement for this perf patch, but is it better to read the shifted key again
Just to verify the logic? If not difficult please add.