Hi Ciprian, The scenario which you have described makes sense when a core dequeues from an ORDERED queue and enqueues into an ATOMIC queue. I think we need to properly describe the definition of ORDERED and ATOMIC queue before writing TCs for the scenario you have defined.
I would prefer to have only sunny day TC's for scheduler for the time being. Regards, Bala On 23 November 2014 07:25, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> wrote: > The semantics of ordered queues still need to be fully (and rigorously) > defined. Otherwise it's impossible to ensure that different > implementations will yield the same results. Once we get past the "sunny > day" tests, its the job of the test writer to be devious in trying to trick > implementations into doing something that the spec says they shouldn't do. > So Ciprian's scenario is a good one. > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Taras Kondratiuk < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11/21/2014 06:16 PM, Ciprian Barbu wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Bala Manoharan >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Few points, >>>> >>>> * Inorder to check ordered state of buffers from second queue they >>>> should be dequeued by a single thread >>>> as scheduler will despatch the buffers from ORDERED queue in initial >>>> order but more than one thread can get the buffer from the same queue at >>>> the same time. >>>> >>> >>> I was thinking something like this: q1 and q2 ORDERED queues. Buffers >>> will first be pushed to the q1 to have something to work with. Then >>> all buffers are dequeued and enqueued in q2 in, say, reverse order. >>> Then the buffers are dequeued from q1 and the order should match the >>> order in which they were pushed to q1. Did I get that right? >>> >> >> That is actually more than you normally need from a scheduler. >> Usually reordering happens because of packet processing parallelization >> on several cores, but not because one core reorders packets. >> >> Petri, I don't remember if we discussed scenario described by Ciprian, >> but previously you mentioned that ORDERED queues can be substituted by >> ATOMIC if ORDERED are not supported by platform. But that won't work when >> core reorders buffer intentionally. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lng-odp mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> > >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
