Caches should be transparent.  While this may be needed here, it's a poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs.  This is definitely
something we need to address.  My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a
scheduling cache.  That way any cache being used is truly transparent and
moreover there won't be unnecessary delays in event processing since who
knows how long a pause may last?  Clearly it won't be brief since otherwise
the application would not have bothered with a pause/resume in the first
place.

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Ciprian Barbu <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >>  test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
> b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
> >> index 31be742..bdbcf77 100644
> >> --- a/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
> >> +++ b/test/validation/odp_schedule.c
> >> @@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
> >>  #define MSG_POOL_SIZE                (4*1024*1024)
> >>  #define QUEUES_PER_PRIO              16
> >>  #define BUF_SIZE             64
> >> -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS                100
> >> +#define NUM_BUFS             100
> >>  #define BURST_BUF_SIZE               4
> >> -#define TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL   10000
> >> +#define NUM_BUFS_EXCL                10000
> >> +#define NUM_BUFS_PAUSE               1000
> >> +#define NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE        10
> >>
> >>  #define GLOBALS_SHM_NAME     "test_globals"
> >>  #define MSG_POOL_NAME                "msg_pool"
> >> @@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void schedule_common(odp_schedule_sync_t
> sync, int num_queues,
> >>       args.sync = sync;
> >>       args.num_queues = num_queues;
> >>       args.num_prio = num_prio;
> >> -     args.num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
> >> +     args.num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
> >>       args.num_cores = 1;
> >>       args.enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
> >>       args.enable_excl_atomic = 0;    /* Not needed with a single core
> */
> >> @@ -261,9 +263,9 @@ static void parallel_execute(odp_schedule_sync_t
> sync, int num_queues,
> >>       thr_args->num_queues = num_queues;
> >>       thr_args->num_prio = num_prio;
> >>       if (enable_excl_atomic)
> >> -             thr_args->num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
> >> +             thr_args->num_bufs = NUM_BUFS_EXCL;
> >>       else
> >> -             thr_args->num_bufs = TEST_NUM_BUFS;
> >> +             thr_args->num_bufs = NUM_BUFS;
> >>       thr_args->num_cores = globals->core_count;
> >>       thr_args->enable_schd_multi = enable_schd_multi;
> >>       thr_args->enable_excl_atomic = enable_excl_atomic;
> >> @@ -459,6 +461,56 @@ static void test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl(void)
> >>                        ENABLE_EXCL_ATOMIC);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +static void test_schedule_pause_resume(void)
> >> +{
> >> +     odp_queue_t queue;
> >> +     odp_buffer_t buf;
> >> +     odp_queue_t from;
> >> +     int i;
> >> +     int local_bufs = 0;
> >> +
> >> +     queue = odp_queue_lookup("sched_0_0_n");
> >> +     CU_ASSERT(queue != ODP_QUEUE_INVALID);
> >> +
> >> +     pool = odp_buffer_pool_lookup(MSG_POOL_NAME);
> >> +     CU_ASSERT_FATAL(pool != ODP_BUFFER_POOL_INVALID);
> >> +
> >> +
> >> +     for (i = 0; i < NUM_BUFS_PAUSE; i++) {
> >> +             buf = odp_buffer_alloc(pool);
> >> +             CU_ASSERT(buf != ODP_BUFFER_INVALID);
> >> +             odp_queue_enq(queue, buf);
> >> +     }
> >> +
> >> +     for (i = 0; i < NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i++) {
> >> +             buf = odp_schedule(&from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
> >> +             CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
> >> +             odp_buffer_free(buf);
> >> +     }
> >> +
> >> +     odp_schedule_pause();
> >> +
> >> +     while (1) {
> >> +             buf = odp_schedule(&from, ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT);
> >> +             if (buf == ODP_BUFFER_INVALID)
> >> +                     break;
> >> +
> >> +             CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
> >> +             odp_buffer_free(buf);
> >> +             local_bufs++;
> >> +     }
> >> +
> >> +     CU_ASSERT(local_bufs < NUM_BUFS_PAUSE - NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE);
> >
> > Whats is the expected behavior here, Shouldn't it be
> CU_ASSERT(local_bufs == 0) ?
> > meaning, the complete pause ?
>
> Sorry about the delay, I've been playing around with mutt and I must
> have accidentally marked this email as read.
> The explanation here is that after pausing the scheduling, there might
> still be locally reserved buffers (see the odp_schedule_pause
> documentation). For linux-generic for instance the scheduler dequeues
> buffers in bursts, odp_scheduler_pause only stops further dequeues,
> buffers may still be in the 'reservoirs'. With that in mind, the check
> above makes sure that after pausing only a limited number of packets
> are still scheduled, or else said pausing seems to work, not all
> packets being drained.
>
> >
> >> +
> >> +     odp_schedule_resume();
> >> +
> >> +     for (i = local_bufs + NUM_BUFS_BEFORE_PAUSE; i < NUM_BUFS_PAUSE;
> i++) {
> >> +             buf = odp_schedule(&from, ODP_SCHED_WAIT);
> >> +             CU_ASSERT(from == queue);
> >> +             odp_buffer_free(buf);
> >> +     }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  static int create_queues(void)
> >>  {
> >>       int i, j, prios;
> >> @@ -594,6 +646,7 @@ struct CU_TestInfo test_odp_schedule[] = {
> >>       {"schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_a", test_schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_a},
> >>       {"schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_o", test_schedule_multi_mq_mt_prio_o},
> >>       {"schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl", test_schedule_multi_1q_mt_a_excl},
> >> +     {"schedule_pause_resume",       test_schedule_pause_resume},
> >>       CU_TEST_INFO_NULL,
> >>  };
> >>
> >> --
> >> 1.8.3.2
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp

Reply via email to