[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test/service: add perf test for service on app lcore

[Lukasz Wojciechowski]

W dniu 05.05.2020 o 12:21, Van Haaren, Harry pisze:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lukasz Wojciechowski <l.wojciechow at partner.samsung.com>
>> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:50 PM
>> To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
>> Cc: honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com; phil.yang at arm.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test/service: add perf test for service on app
>> lcore
> <snip code>
>
>>> +	unregister_all();
>>>    	return TEST_SUCCESS;
>>>    }
>>>
>> Hi Harry,
> Hey Lukasz,
>
>> I like the idea of adding this test. I checked it and it works fine.
> Thanks for testing - please send a "Tested-by: .. <email>" and we can track
> your input into the git logs :)

No problem, I just wanted to get you opinion first, but here you go:

Tested-by: Lukasz Wojciechowski <l.wojciechow at partner.samsung.com>

>
>> However have you considered adding it as a separate testcase or even
>> better as "service_perf_autotest" command ?
> Actually I started implementing a new function with a very similar name,
> but realized that the configuration/mapping would be duplicated, only to
> have a different named test... so opted for this smaller diff solution.
>
>> With your changes the: service_app_lcore_mt_safe and
>> service_app_lcore_mt_unsafe unit tests cases have multiple
>> functionalities: they test simultaneous execution of service and they do
>> performance checks.
> Correct - if you feel strongly that this isn't right I can refactor to a v2,
> however I expect there would be more duplicated code to manage, and
> hence I decided the above approach was simpler and easier.
It's up to you and some more dpdk-experienced guys. Isn't there a way 
not to duplicate the code but wrap it in a function?
You don't really need that much, because you run the performance test 
after the former version of test is completed. You don't need 2 lcores 
also as you measure direct start of service function, which also is 
almost empty as it immediately returns because the loop breaking 
conditions are already set.
>
>> Best regards
>> Lukasz
> Regards, -Harry

-- 

Lukasz Wojciechowski
Principal Software Engineer

Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
Office +48 22 377 88 25
l.wojciechow at partner.samsung.com