The odp_example() call is a very useful sanity test.  The problem with many
of the others is that they are not self-contained and assume some sort of
(unspecified) I/O configuration and source/sink.

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> On 15 December 2014 at 17:04, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 15 December 2014 at 09:56, Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: ext Ola Liljedahl [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 2:53 PM
> >> > To: Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> >> > Cc: ext Mike Holmes; [email protected]
> >> > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 0/3] Remove odp_schedule_one for 1.0
> >> > compliance
> >> >
> >> > On 15 December 2014 at 13:45, Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > Otherwise OK, but shouldn't remove the timer example.
> >> > I also think it is good to have a timer example. Just shouldn't be
> >> > called odp_timer_test. Since we don't have any other timer example,
> >> > this one will have to do for now.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Why it's a bad example? I think we need a set of simple examples. It
> >> > would also demonstrate how to step out from a schedule loop (== pause
> ->
> >> > schedule until ODP_BUFFER_INVALID is returned -> tear down / step
> out).
> >> > >
> >> > > The new timer example could be more performance oriented, etc.
> >> > What is that that we want to demonstrate?
> >> > 1) basic timer usage (single-threaded?)
> >> > 2) multithreaded, combining timer and scheduler
> >> > 3) more?
> >> >
> >> > Can you be more specific with "more performance oriented"?
> >>
> >> I think all examples should be multi-threaded. There could be two
> >> categories of examples: "hello world" and more realistic/performance
> >> oriented. The first would demonstrate usage of an API in simplest
> possible
> >> way and with low dependency to other APIs.
> The simplest possible way is probably not multithreaded. Just some
> straight code from main, creating necessary resources (e.g. memory
> regions, buffer pools, queues) and then some sunny day usage of the
> API in question.
>
> >
> >
> > These should be in odp/examples.  I think they should be called out from
> the
> > doxygen API documentation to get the most value from them.
> >
> >>
> >> The second would be more complex, but would run more things in parallel
> >> and measure performance as well (easy / light weight check that parallel
> >> execution works and performs OK).
> These are benchmarks, not examples. As Mike writes below...
>
> Benchmarks might not be particularly simple and easy to understand.
>
> >
> >
> > These should be in odp/benchmarks, they need to allow for being too
> complex
> > to be an introductory example to a feature, but they also need to do
> > something useful beyond creating the configuration needed for testing
> unlike
> > anything in odp/test.
> If they are micro benchmarks, they shouldn't really do anything else.
> If they do something else, that processing will also be included in
> the benchmark results.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> From current examples:
> >> - odp_example is type 2 for queues/scheduling. There could be another
> >> "hello world" queues/scheduling app.
> >>
> >> - odp_timer_test is type 1 for timers (runs 20 sec and exists). There
> >> could be another that runs long / forever and measures cpu load, timeout
> >> accuracy, etc
> Sounds like a benchmark to me (measuring characteristics in general,
> not just throughout for some specific function). This can easily
> become complicated.
>
> >
> >
> > I believe that the current examples are not ideal,  I also feel we need
> to
> > delete test/api_test, these should be examples, benchmarks or tests.
> Kill them all!
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Petri
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mike Holmes
> > Linaro  Sr Technical Manager
> > LNG - ODP
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to