[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] test/lpm: remove error checking in rcu qsbr perf

Honnappa Nagarahalli Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com
Tue Nov 3 02:21:11 CET 2020


<snip>

> 
> Remove redundant error checking for reader threads since they never return
> error.
> 
> Fixes: eff30b59cc2e ("test/lpm: add RCU performance tests")
> Cc: honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com
> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dharmik Thakkar <dharmik.thakkar at arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang at arm.com>
> ---
>  app/test/test_lpm_perf.c | 21 ++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test/test_lpm_perf.c b/app/test/test_lpm_perf.c index
> 55084816ab91..224c92fa3d65 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_lpm_perf.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_lpm_perf.c
> @@ -554,11 +554,10 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf_multi_writer(void)
>  		__atomic_load_n(&gwrite_cycles, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
>  		/ TOTAL_WRITES);
> 
> -	/* Wait and check return value from reader threads */
>  	writer_done = 1;
> +	/* Wait until all readers have exited */
>  	for (i = 2; i < num_cores; i++)
> -		if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> -			goto error;
> +		rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]);
> 
>  	rte_lpm_free(lpm);
>  	rte_free(rv);
> @@ -603,10 +602,9 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf_multi_writer(void)
>  		/ TOTAL_WRITES);
> 
>  	writer_done = 1;
> -	/* Wait and check return value from reader threads */
> +	/* Wait until all readers have exited */
>  	for (i = 2; i < num_cores; i++)
> -		if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> -			goto error;
> +		rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]);
> 
>  	rte_lpm_free(lpm);
> 
> @@ -710,10 +708,9 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf(void)
>  		(double)total_cycles / TOTAL_WRITES);
> 
>  	writer_done = 1;
> -	/* Wait and check return value from reader threads */
> +	/* Wait until all readers have exited */
>  	for (i = 0; i < num_cores; i++)
> -		if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> -			goto error;
> +		if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]);
                             ^^ Do we need the 'if' statement?
> 
>  	rte_lpm_free(lpm);
>  	rte_free(rv);
> @@ -769,11 +766,9 @@ test_lpm_rcu_perf(void)
>  		(double)total_cycles / TOTAL_WRITES);
> 
>  	writer_done = 1;
> -	/* Wait and check return value from reader threads */
> +	/* Wait until all readers have exited */
>  	for (i = 0; i < num_cores; i++)
> -		if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]) < 0)
> -			printf("Warning: lcore %u not finished.\n",
> -				enabled_core_ids[i]);
> +		rte_eal_wait_lcore(enabled_core_ids[i]);
> 
>  	rte_lpm_free(lpm);
> 
> --
> 2.17.1



More information about the dev mailing list