Who review this patch please add review-by.
Mike please add yours because it's validation patch.
Maxim.
On 01/20/2015 05:23 PM, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
PING!
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been on
the list for a month
On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
We need to have a decision (and implementation) for ODP 1.0 though.
Scheduling and its semantics are important aspects of ODP.
The odp_schedule_pause API is already documented and implemented, I
didn't exactly catch from Petri if we will keep the behavior for 1.0,
but what is the problem with covering this API in its current form for
at least 0.7 and 0.8?
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
<[email protected]> wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]>
wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important
for
1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer
<[email protected]>
wrote:
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.
Sorry, I couldn't join you in the ODP call yesterday, mind if you give
a brief update on what was decided?
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
--
Mike Holmes
Linaro Sr Technical Manager
LNG - ODP
--
Mike Holmes
Linaro Sr Technical Manager
LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
--
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
