<!DOCTYPE html><html><head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body> <p>Hi Andre,<br> </p> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/03/2025 14:45, Andre Muezerie wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20250305144531.GA32194@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net"> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:08:33AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 07:21:26AM -0800, Andre Muezerie wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">Test lpm6_perf_autotest was hitting a stack overflow on Windows with both MSVC and Clang. The fix is to move some of the data from the stack to the heap. Signed-off-by: Andre Muezerie <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:andremue@linux.microsoft.com"><andremue@linux.microsoft.com></a> --- app/test/test_lpm6_perf.c | 13 +++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/app/test/test_lpm6_perf.c b/app/test/test_lpm6_perf.c index 1860a99ed6..59df0a958a 100644 --- a/app/test/test_lpm6_perf.c +++ b/app/test/test_lpm6_perf.c @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ #include <rte_cycles.h> #include <rte_random.h> +#include <rte_malloc.h> #include <rte_memory.h> #include <rte_lpm6.h> @@ -117,8 +118,13 @@ test_lpm6_perf(void) total_time = 0; count = 0; - struct rte_ipv6_addr ip_batch[NUM_IPS_ENTRIES]; - int32_t next_hops[NUM_IPS_ENTRIES]; + struct rte_ipv6_addr *ip_batch = rte_calloc("ip_batch", + NUM_IPS_ENTRIES, sizeof(struct rte_ipv6_addr), 0); + TEST_LPM_ASSERT(ip_batch != NULL); + + int32_t *next_hops = rte_calloc("next_hops", + NUM_IPS_ENTRIES, sizeof(int32_t), 0); + TEST_LPM_ASSERT(next_hops != NULL); </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"> While I don't think we need to use the "rte_" versions of allocation, this is still an ok fix - and I see that in v1 regular malloc was used. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"> The reviewers had different opinions on which allocator function should be used, that's why it was changed. Thanks for being flexible on this.</pre> </blockquote>  <p class="MsoPlainText">As I mentioned earlier, I think it's better to use the memory allocated from hugepages here since we are measuring performance.</p> <p>Acked-by: Vladimir Medvedkin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com"><vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com></a></p> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20250305144531.GA32194@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net"> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"> With either calloc or rte_calloc used. Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com"><bruce.richardson@intel.com></a> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"> for (i = 0; i < NUM_IPS_ENTRIES; i++) ip_batch[i] = large_ips_table[i].ip; @@ -153,6 +159,9 @@ test_lpm6_perf(void) printf("Average LPM Delete: %g cycles\n", (double)total_time / NUM_ROUTE_ENTRIES); + rte_free(next_hops); + rte_free(ip_batch); + rte_lpm6_delete_all(lpm); rte_lpm6_free(lpm); -- 2.47.0.vfs.0.3 </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Regards, Vladimir</pre> </body> </html>