diff mbox series

[v1,1/2] test/rwlock: add perf test case

Message ID 1544672265-219262-2-git-send-email-joyce.kong@arm.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers
Series reimplement rwlock and add relevant perf test case |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK
ci/mellanox-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS
ci/intel-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS

Commit Message

Joyce Kong Dec. 13, 2018, 3:37 a.m. UTC 
  Add performance test on all available cores to benchmark
the scaling up performance and fairness of rw_lock.

Fixes: af75078faf ("first public release")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Suggested-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Joyce Kong <joyce.kong@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljedahl@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
---
 test/test/test_rwlock.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)

Comments

Ananyev, Konstantin Dec. 19, 2018, 11:34 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hi,

> 
> Add performance test on all available cores to benchmark
> the scaling up performance and fairness of rw_lock.
> 
> Fixes: af75078faf ("first public release")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Suggested-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joyce Kong <joyce.kong@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljedahl@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> ---
>  test/test/test_rwlock.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/test/test/test_rwlock.c b/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> index 29171c4..4766c09 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> 
>  #include <stdio.h>
>  #include <stdint.h>
> +#include <inttypes.h>
>  #include <unistd.h>
>  #include <sys/queue.h>
> 
> @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@
> 
>  static rte_rwlock_t sl;
>  static rte_rwlock_t sl_tab[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
> +static rte_atomic32_t synchro;
> 
>  static int
>  test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
> @@ -65,6 +67,72 @@ test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> +static rte_rwlock_t lk = RTE_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER;
> +static uint64_t lock_count[RTE_MAX_LCORE] = {0};
> +
> +#define TIME_MS 100
> +
> +static int
> +load_loop_fn(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
> +{
> +	uint64_t time_diff = 0, begin;
> +	uint64_t hz = rte_get_timer_hz();
> +	uint64_t lcount = 0;
> +	const unsigned int lcore = rte_lcore_id();
> +
> +	/* wait synchro for slaves */
> +	if (lcore != rte_get_master_lcore())
> +		while (rte_atomic32_read(&synchro) == 0)
> +			;
> +
> +	begin = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> +	while (time_diff < hz * TIME_MS / 1000) {
> +		rte_rwlock_write_lock(&lk);
> +		rte_pause();

Wouldn't it be more realistic to write/read some shared data here?
Again extra checking could be done in that case that lock behaves as expected.

> +		rte_rwlock_write_unlock(&lk);
> +		rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);
> +		rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);

Wonder what is the point of double rdlock here?
Konstantin

> +		rte_pause();
> +		rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
> +		rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
> +		lcount++;
> +		/* delay to make lock duty cycle slightly realistic */
> +		rte_pause();
> +		time_diff = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
> +	}
> +	lock_count[lcore] = lcount;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
Gavin Hu Dec. 20, 2018, 1:01 a.m. UTC | #2 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 7:35 AM
> To: Joyce Kong (Arm Technology China) <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>;
> dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>; thomas@monjalon.net;
> jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Honnappa
> Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology
> China) <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] test/rwlock: add perf test case
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> >
> > Add performance test on all available cores to benchmark the scaling
> > up performance and fairness of rw_lock.
> >
> > Fixes: af75078faf ("first public release")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Suggested-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Joyce Kong <joyce.kong@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljedahl@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  test/test/test_rwlock.c | 71
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/test/test/test_rwlock.c b/test/test/test_rwlock.c index
> > 29171c4..4766c09 100644
> > --- a/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> > +++ b/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> >
> >  #include <stdio.h>
> >  #include <stdint.h>
> > +#include <inttypes.h>
> >  #include <unistd.h>
> >  #include <sys/queue.h>
> >
> > @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@
> >
> >  static rte_rwlock_t sl;
> >  static rte_rwlock_t sl_tab[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
> > +static rte_atomic32_t synchro;
> >
> >  static int
> >  test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg) @@ -65,6
> > +67,72 @@ test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +static rte_rwlock_t lk = RTE_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER; static uint64_t
> > +lock_count[RTE_MAX_LCORE] = {0};
> > +
> > +#define TIME_MS 100
> > +
> > +static int
> > +load_loop_fn(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg) {
> > +	uint64_t time_diff = 0, begin;
> > +	uint64_t hz = rte_get_timer_hz();
> > +	uint64_t lcount = 0;
> > +	const unsigned int lcore = rte_lcore_id();
> > +
> > +	/* wait synchro for slaves */
> > +	if (lcore != rte_get_master_lcore())
> > +		while (rte_atomic32_read(&synchro) == 0)
> > +			;
> > +
> > +	begin = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> > +	while (time_diff < hz * TIME_MS / 1000) {
> > +		rte_rwlock_write_lock(&lk);
> > +		rte_pause();
> 
> Wouldn't it be more realistic to write/read some shared data here?
> Again extra checking could be done in that case that lock behaves as
> expected.
Will do it in v2, thanks!
> 
> > +		rte_rwlock_write_unlock(&lk);
> > +		rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);
> > +		rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);
> 
> Wonder what is the point of double rdlock here?
> Konstantin
Double rd lock is to check rd locks will not block each other. 
Anyway I will remove it in v2 if no concerns here.
> 
> > +		rte_pause();
> > +		rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
> > +		rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
> > +		lcount++;
> > +		/* delay to make lock duty cycle slightly realistic */
> > +		rte_pause();
> > +		time_diff = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
> > +	}
> > +	lock_count[lcore] = lcount;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
Honnappa Nagarahalli Dec. 20, 2018, 1:45 a.m. UTC | #3 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > >
> > > Add performance test on all available cores to benchmark the scaling
> > > up performance and fairness of rw_lock.
> > >
> > > Fixes: af75078faf ("first public release")
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Joyce Kong <joyce.kong@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljedahl@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  test/test/test_rwlock.c | 71
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/test/test/test_rwlock.c b/test/test/test_rwlock.c index
> > > 29171c4..4766c09 100644
> > > --- a/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> > > +++ b/test/test/test_rwlock.c
> > > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> > >
> > >  #include <stdio.h>
> > >  #include <stdint.h>
> > > +#include <inttypes.h>
> > >  #include <unistd.h>
> > >  #include <sys/queue.h>
> > >
> > > @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@
> > >
> > >  static rte_rwlock_t sl;
> > >  static rte_rwlock_t sl_tab[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
> > > +static rte_atomic32_t synchro;
> > >
> > >  static int
> > >  test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg) @@ -65,6
> > > +67,72 @@ test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static rte_rwlock_t lk = RTE_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER; static uint64_t
> > > +lock_count[RTE_MAX_LCORE] = {0};
> > > +
> > > +#define TIME_MS 100
> > > +
> > > +static int
> > > +load_loop_fn(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg) {
> > > +	uint64_t time_diff = 0, begin;
> > > +	uint64_t hz = rte_get_timer_hz();
> > > +	uint64_t lcount = 0;
> > > +	const unsigned int lcore = rte_lcore_id();
> > > +
> > > +	/* wait synchro for slaves */
> > > +	if (lcore != rte_get_master_lcore())
> > > +		while (rte_atomic32_read(&synchro) == 0)
> > > +			;
> > > +
> > > +	begin = rte_rdtsc_precise();
> > > +	while (time_diff < hz * TIME_MS / 1000) {
> > > +		rte_rwlock_write_lock(&lk);
> > > +		rte_pause();
> >
> > Wouldn't it be more realistic to write/read some shared data here?
> > Again extra checking could be done in that case that lock behaves as
> > expected.
> Will do it in v2, thanks!
> >
> > > +		rte_rwlock_write_unlock(&lk);
> > > +		rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);
> > > +		rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);
> >
> > Wonder what is the point of double rdlock here?
> > Konstantin
> Double rd lock is to check rd locks will not block each other.
> Anyway I will remove it in v2 if no concerns here.
> >
> > > +		rte_pause();
> > > +		rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
> > > +		rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
> > > +		lcount++;
> > > +		/* delay to make lock duty cycle slightly realistic */
> > > +		rte_pause();
> > > +		time_diff = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
> > > +	}
Should we change the way the measurement is done? We are measuring 'how many locks/unlocks per <certain time>'. This introduces more over head due to rte_rdtsc_precise call for every iteration. If we do, 'how many cycles it takes to do <certain number of locks/unlocks>', the over head of rte_rdtsc_precise can be amortized and will be very little.

> > > +	lock_count[lcore] = lcount;
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/test/test/test_rwlock.c b/test/test/test_rwlock.c
index 29171c4..4766c09 100644
--- a/test/test/test_rwlock.c
+++ b/test/test/test_rwlock.c
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ 
 
 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <stdint.h>
+#include <inttypes.h>
 #include <unistd.h>
 #include <sys/queue.h>
 
@@ -44,6 +45,7 @@ 
 
 static rte_rwlock_t sl;
 static rte_rwlock_t sl_tab[RTE_MAX_LCORE];
+static rte_atomic32_t synchro;
 
 static int
 test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
@@ -65,6 +67,72 @@  test_rwlock_per_core(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static rte_rwlock_t lk = RTE_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER;
+static uint64_t lock_count[RTE_MAX_LCORE] = {0};
+
+#define TIME_MS 100
+
+static int
+load_loop_fn(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg)
+{
+	uint64_t time_diff = 0, begin;
+	uint64_t hz = rte_get_timer_hz();
+	uint64_t lcount = 0;
+	const unsigned int lcore = rte_lcore_id();
+
+	/* wait synchro for slaves */
+	if (lcore != rte_get_master_lcore())
+		while (rte_atomic32_read(&synchro) == 0)
+			;
+
+	begin = rte_rdtsc_precise();
+	while (time_diff < hz * TIME_MS / 1000) {
+		rte_rwlock_write_lock(&lk);
+		rte_pause();
+		rte_rwlock_write_unlock(&lk);
+		rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);
+		rte_rwlock_read_lock(&lk);
+		rte_pause();
+		rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
+		rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&lk);
+		lcount++;
+		/* delay to make lock duty cycle slightly realistic */
+		rte_pause();
+		time_diff = rte_rdtsc_precise() - begin;
+	}
+	lock_count[lcore] = lcount;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int
+test_rwlock_perf(void)
+{
+	unsigned int i;
+	uint64_t total = 0;
+
+	printf("\nRwlock Perf Test on %u cores...\n", rte_lcore_count());
+
+	/* clear synchro and start slaves */
+	rte_atomic32_set(&synchro, 0);
+	if (rte_eal_mp_remote_launch(load_loop_fn, NULL, SKIP_MASTER) < 0)
+		return -1;
+
+	/* start synchro and launch test on master */
+	rte_atomic32_set(&synchro, 1);
+	load_loop_fn(NULL);
+
+	rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();
+
+	RTE_LCORE_FOREACH(i) {
+		printf("Core [%u] count = %"PRIu64"\n", i, lock_count[i]);
+		total += lock_count[i];
+	}
+
+	printf("Total count = %"PRIu64"\n", total);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int
 test_rwlock(void)
 {
@@ -95,6 +163,9 @@  test_rwlock(void)
 
 	rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();
 
+	if (test_rwlock_perf() < 0)
+		return -1;
+
 	return 0;
 }