[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/4] test/hash: add tests for integrated RCU QSBR

[Wang, Yipeng1]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar at arm.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:13 AM
> To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang at intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh
> <sameh.gobriel at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; nd at arm.com; Dharmik Thakkar
> <dharmik.thakkar at arm.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v5 4/4] test/hash: add tests for integrated RCU QSBR
> 
> Add functional and performance tests for the integrated RCU QSBR.
> 
> Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar at arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang at arm.com>
> ---
>  app/test/test_hash.c                   | 390 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  app/test/test_hash_readwrite_lf_perf.c | 170 ++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 556 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test/test_hash.c b/app/test/test_hash.c index
> 990a1815f893..22b47b3e7728 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_hash.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_hash.c
> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static uint32_t hashtest_key_lens[] = {0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10,
> 11, 15, 16, 21,
>  	}								\
>  } while(0)
> 
> -#define RETURN_IF_ERROR_FBK(cond, str, ...) do {
> 	\
> +#define RETURN_IF_ERROR_FBK(cond, str, ...) do {			\
>  	if (cond) {							\
>  		printf("ERROR line %d: " str "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__);
> \
>  		if (handle) rte_fbk_hash_free(handle);			\
> @@ -60,6 +60,20 @@ static uint32_t hashtest_key_lens[] = {0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
> 10, 11, 15, 16, 21,
>  	}								\
>  } while(0)
> 
> +#define RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(cond, str, ...) do {
> 	\
> +	if (cond) {							\
> +		printf("ERROR line %d: " str "\n", __LINE__, ##__VA_ARGS__);
> \
> +		if (rcu_cfg.mode == RTE_HASH_QSBR_MODE_SYNC) {
> 	\
> +			writer_done = 1;				\
> +			/* Wait until reader exited. */			\
> +			rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();			\
> +		}							\
> +		if (g_handle) rte_hash_free(g_handle);			\
> +		if (g_qsv) rte_free(g_qsv);				\
> +		return -1;						\
> +	}								\
> +} while(0)
> +
>  /* 5-tuple key type */
>  struct flow_key {
>  	uint32_t ip_src;
> @@ -1801,6 +1815,365 @@ test_hash_add_delete_jhash_3word(void)
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +static struct rte_hash *g_handle;
> +static struct rte_rcu_qsbr *g_qsv;
> +static volatile uint8_t writer_done;
> +struct flow_key g_rand_keys[9];
> +/*
> + * rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add positive and negative tests.
> + *  - Add RCU QSBR variable to Hash
> + *  - Add another RCU QSBR variable to Hash
> + *  - Check returns
> + */
> +static int
> +test_hash_rcu_qsbr_add(void)
> +{
> +	size_t sz;
> +	struct rte_rcu_qsbr *qsv2 = NULL;
> +	int32_t status;
> +	struct rte_hash_rcu_config rcu_cfg = {0};
> +
> +	struct rte_hash_parameters params;
> +
> +	printf("\n# Running RCU QSBR add tests\n");
> +	memcpy(&params, &ut_params, sizeof(params));
> +	params.name = "test_hash_rcu_qsbr_add";
> +	params.extra_flag = RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_RW_CONCURRENCY_LF
> |
> +
> 	RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD;
> +	g_handle = rte_hash_create(&params);
> +	RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(g_handle == NULL, "Hash creation
> failed");
> +
> +	/* Create RCU QSBR variable */
> +	sz = rte_rcu_qsbr_get_memsize(RTE_MAX_LCORE);
> +	g_qsv = (struct rte_rcu_qsbr *)rte_zmalloc_socket(NULL, sz,
> +					RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE,
> SOCKET_ID_ANY);
> +	RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(g_qsv == NULL,
> +				 "RCU QSBR variable creation failed");
> +
> +	status = rte_rcu_qsbr_init(g_qsv, RTE_MAX_LCORE);
[Wang, Yipeng] It reminds me that could we hide this function in the rte_cuckoo_hash.c as well?
I saw most of the rcu related functions are hidden in the hash implementation, it would be less confusing if we hide this one as well.

> +	RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(status != 0,
> +				 "RCU QSBR variable initialization failed");
> +
> +	rcu_cfg.v = g_qsv;
> +	/* Invalid QSBR mode */
> +	rcu_cfg.mode = 2;
[Wang, Yipeng] Any other way rather than hardcode 2 here? Maybe just a large number like 0xff?

> +	status = rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add(g_handle, &rcu_cfg);
> +	RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(status == 0, "Invalid QSBR mode test
> +failed");
> +
> +	rcu_cfg.mode = RTE_HASH_QSBR_MODE_DQ;
[Wang, Yipeng] This reminds me that if there is an explanation on the difference of the two modes for users to easy to choose? 

> +	/* Attach RCU QSBR to hash table */
> +	status = rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add(g_handle, &rcu_cfg);
> +	RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(status != 0,
> +				 "Attach RCU QSBR to hash table failed");
> +
> +	/* Create and attach another RCU QSBR to hash table */
> +	qsv2 = (struct rte_rcu_qsbr *)rte_zmalloc_socket(NULL, sz,
> +					RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE,
> SOCKET_ID_ANY);
> +	RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(qsv2 == NULL,
> +				 "RCU QSBR variable creation failed");
> +
> +	rcu_cfg.v = qsv2;
> +	rcu_cfg.mode = RTE_HASH_QSBR_MODE_SYNC;
> +	status = rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add(g_handle, &rcu_cfg);
> +	rte_free(qsv2);
> +	RETURN_IF_ERROR_RCU_QSBR(status == 0,
> +			"Attach RCU QSBR to hash table succeeded where
> failure"
> +			" is expected");
> +
> +	rte_hash_free(g_handle);
> +	rte_free(g_qsv);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
<...>