[PATCH v12 6/7] eal: add unit tests for atomic bit access functions
Mattias Rönnblom
hofors at lysator.liu.se
Thu Oct 10 13:55:56 CEST 2024
On 2024-10-10 12:45, David Marchand wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:57 PM Mattias Rönnblom
> <mattias.ronnblom at ericsson.com> wrote:
>> + static int \
>> + run_parallel_test_and_modify ## size(void *arg) \
>> + { \
>> + struct parallel_test_and_set_lcore ## size *lcore = arg; \
>> + uint64_t deadline = rte_get_timer_cycles() + \
>> + PARALLEL_TEST_RUNTIME * rte_get_timer_hz(); \
>> + do { \
>> + bool old_value; \
>> + bool new_value = rte_rand() & 1; \
>> + bool use_assign = rte_rand() & 1; \
>> + \
>> + if (use_assign) \
>> + old_value = rte_bit_atomic_test_and_assign( \
>> + lcore->word, lcore->bit, new_value, \
>> + rte_memory_order_relaxed); \
>> + else \
>> + old_value = new_value ? \
>> + rte_bit_atomic_test_and_set( \
>> + lcore->word, lcore->bit, \
>> + rte_memory_order_relaxed) : \
>> + rte_bit_atomic_test_and_clear( \
>> + lcore->word, lcore->bit, \
>> + rte_memory_order_relaxed); \
>> + if (old_value != new_value) \
>> + lcore->flips++; \
>> + } while (rte_get_timer_cycles() < deadline); \
>> + \
>> + return 0; \
>> + } \
>> + \
>> + static int \
>> + test_bit_atomic_parallel_test_and_modify ## size(void) \
>> + { \
>> + unsigned int worker_lcore_id; \
>> + uint ## size ## _t word = 0; \
>> + unsigned int bit = rte_rand_max(size); \
>> + struct parallel_test_and_set_lcore ## size lmain = { \
>> + .word = &word, \
>> + .bit = bit \
>> + }; \
>> + struct parallel_test_and_set_lcore ## size lworker = { \
>> + .word = &word, \
>> + .bit = bit \
>> + }; \
>> + \
>> + if (rte_lcore_count() < 2) { \
>> + printf("Need multiple cores to run parallel test.\n"); \
>> + return TEST_SKIPPED; \
>> + } \
>> + \
>> + worker_lcore_id = rte_get_next_lcore(-1, 1, 0); \
>> + \
>> + int rc = rte_eal_remote_launch(run_parallel_test_and_modify ## size, \
>> + &lworker, worker_lcore_id); \
>> + TEST_ASSERT(rc == 0, "Worker thread launch failed"); \
>> + \
>> + run_parallel_test_and_modify ## size(&lmain); \
>> + \
>> + rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore(); \
>> + \
>> + uint64_t total_flips = lmain.flips + lworker.flips; \
>> + bool expected_value = total_flips % 2; \
>> + \
>> + TEST_ASSERT(expected_value == rte_bit_test(&word, bit), \
>> + "After %"PRId64" flips, the bit value " \
>> + "should be %d", total_flips, expected_value); \
>> + \
>> + uint64_t expected_word = 0; \
>> + rte_bit_assign(&expected_word, bit, expected_value); \
>> + \
>> + TEST_ASSERT(expected_word == word, "Untouched bits have " \
>> + "changed value"); \
>> + \
>> + return TEST_SUCCESS; \
>> + }
>> +
>> +GEN_TEST_BIT_PARALLEL_TEST_AND_MODIFY(32)
>> +GEN_TEST_BIT_PARALLEL_TEST_AND_MODIFY(64)
>
> It appears this test failed once in the CI for an unrelated series
> (uAPI kernel header import):
> https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/testruns/logs/1385993/
>
> + TestCase [ 0] : test_bit_access32 succeeded
> + TestCase [ 1] : test_bit_access64 succeeded
> + TestCase [ 2] : test_bit_access32 succeeded
> + TestCase [ 3] : test_bit_access64 succeeded
> + TestCase [ 4] : test_bit_v_access32 succeeded
> + TestCase [ 5] : test_bit_v_access64 succeeded
> + TestCase [ 6] : test_bit_atomic_access32 succeeded
> + TestCase [ 7] : test_bit_atomic_access64 succeeded
> + TestCase [ 8] : test_bit_atomic_v_access32 succeeded
> + TestCase [ 9] : test_bit_atomic_v_access64 succeeded
> + TestCase [10] : test_bit_atomic_parallel_assign32 succeeded
> + TestCase [11] : test_bit_atomic_parallel_assign64 succeeded
> + TestCase [12] : test_bit_atomic_parallel_test_and_modify32 failed
> + TestCase [13] : test_bit_atomic_parallel_test_and_modify64 succeeded
> + TestCase [14] : test_bit_atomic_parallel_flip32 succeeded
> + TestCase [15] : test_bit_atomic_parallel_flip64 succeeded
> + TestCase [16] : test_bit_relaxed_set succeeded
> + TestCase [17] : test_bit_relaxed_clear succeeded
> + TestCase [18] : test_bit_relaxed_test_set_clear succeeded
>
> EAL: Test assert test_bit_atomic_parallel_test_and_modify32 line 236
> failed: After 1070523 flips, the bit value should be 1
>
> Please have a look.
>
>
OK. Nothing obvious from what I can see in the code. Unrelated: why did
you remove all empty lines in the "template" macros? Makes them much
harder to read.
I've been unable to reproduce this on my Raptor Lake x86_64 with GCC
12.3 (CI machine used GCC 12.2).
I'll try if I have better luck on some other systems.
More information about the dev
mailing list