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

Lukasz Wojciechowski l.wojciechow at partner.samsung.com
Mon May 4 22:50:19 CEST 2020


W dniu 01.05.2020 o 17:56, Harry van Haaren pisze:
> Add a performance test to the service run on app lcore auto-
> test. This test runs the service in a tight loop, and measures
> cycles passed, printing the results. It provides a quick cycle
> cost value, enabling measuring performance of the function to
> run a service on an application lcore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>
>
> ---
>
> I'm suggesting to merge this patch before the bugfix/C11 patch series,
> (v2 currently here: https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=fda15556-a06d9cd2-fda0de19-0cc47aa8f5ba-177ac65d20682aa8&q=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpatches.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F69199%2F )
> as this would enable users to benchmark the "before" and "after"
> states of the bugfix/C11 patches easier.
>
> ---
>   app/test/test_service_cores.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_service_cores.c b/app/test/test_service_cores.c
> index a922c7ddc..469243314 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_service_cores.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_service_cores.c
> @@ -789,8 +789,18 @@ service_app_lcore_poll_impl(const int mt_safe)
>   				"MT Unsafe: App core1 didn't return -EBUSY");
>   	}
>   
> -	unregister_all();
> +	/* Performance test: call in a loop, and measure tsc() */
> +	const uint32_t perf_iters = (1 << 12);
> +	uint64_t start = rte_rdtsc();
> +	for (uint32_t i = 0; i < perf_iters; i++) {
> +		int err = service_run_on_app_core_func(&id);
> +		TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(0, err, "perf test: returned run failure");
> +	}
> +	uint64_t end = rte_rdtsc();
> +	printf("perf test for %s: %0.1f cycles per call\n", mt_safe ?
> +		"MT Safe" : "MT Unsafe", (end - start)/(float)perf_iters);
>   
> +	unregister_all();
>   	return TEST_SUCCESS;
>   }
>   

Hi Harry,


I like the idea of adding this test. I checked it and it works fine.
However have you considered adding it as a separate testcase or even 
better as "service_perf_autotest" command ?

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.


Best regards

Lukasz

-- 

Lukasz Wojciechowski
Principal Software Engineer

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



More information about the dev mailing list