From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <kuba@kernel.org>, <jasowang@redhat.com>,
<brouer@redhat.com>, <paulmck@kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
<will@kernel.org>, <shuah@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@openeuler.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] selftests/ptr_ring: add benchmark application for ptr_ring
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:40:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9078c923-237f-db46-73a2-97ffd8e229ac@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210625023308-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
On 2021/6/25 14:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:18:55AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> Currently ptr_ring selftest is embedded within the virtio
>> selftest, which involves some specific virtio operation,
>> such as notifying and kicking.
>>
>> As ptr_ring has been used by various subsystems, it deserves
>> it's owner's selftest in order to benchmark different usecase
>> of ptr_ring, such as page pool and pfifo_fast qdisc.
>>
>> So add a simple application to benchmark ptr_ring performance.
>> Currently two test mode is supported:
>> Mode 0: Both enqueuing and dequeuing is done in a single thread,
>> it is called simple test mode in the test app.
>> Mode 1: Enqueuing and dequeuing is done in different thread
>> concurrently, also known as SPSC(single-producer/
>> single-consumer) test.
>>
>> The multi-producer/single-consumer test for pfifo_fast case is
>> not added yet, which can be added if using CAS atomic operation
>> to enable lockless multi-producer is proved to be better than
>> using r->producer_lock.
>>
>> Only supported on x86 and arm64 for now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> MAINTAINERS | 5 +
>> tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/Makefile | 6 +
>> tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.c | 249 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.h | 150 ++++++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 410 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/Makefile
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.c
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.h
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index cc375fd..1227022 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -14847,6 +14847,11 @@ F: drivers/net/phy/dp83640*
>> F: drivers/ptp/*
>> F: include/linux/ptp_cl*
>>
>> +PTR RING BENCHMARK
>> +M: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
>> +L: netdev@vger.kernel.org
>> +F: tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/
>> +
>> PTRACE SUPPORT
>> M: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
>> S: Maintained
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/Makefile
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..346dea9
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/Makefile
>> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +LDLIBS = -lpthread
>> +
>> +TEST_GEN_PROGS := ptr_ring_test
>> +
>> +include ../lib.mk
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..4f32d3d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>
> Can we keep this GPL-2.0-or-later same as ptr ring itself?
> Encourages reuse ...
Ok.
>
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (C) 2021 HiSilicon Limited.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <stdio.h>
>> +#include <stdlib.h>
>> +#include <unistd.h>
>> +#include <string.h>
>> +#include <errno.h>
>> +#include <sys/time.h>
>> +#include <malloc.h>
>> +#include <assert.h>
>> +#include <stdbool.h>
>> +#include <pthread.h>
>> +
>> +#include "ptr_ring_test.h"
>> +#include "../../../../include/linux/ptr_ring.h"
>> +
>> +#define MIN_RING_SIZE 2
>> +#define MAX_RING_SIZE 10000000
>> +
>> +static struct ptr_ring ring ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>> +
>> +struct worker_info {
>> + pthread_t tid;
>> + int test_count;
>> + bool error;
>> + long duration_us;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void *produce_worker(void *arg)
>> +{
>> + struct worker_info *info = arg;
>> + struct timeval start, end;
>> + unsigned long i = 0;
>> + long sec, us;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
>> +
>> + while (++i <= info->test_count) {
>> + while (__ptr_ring_full(&ring))
>> + cpu_relax();
>> +
>> + ret = __ptr_ring_produce(&ring, (void *)i);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "produce failed: %d\n", ret);
>> + info->error = true;
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + gettimeofday(&end, NULL);
>> +
>> + sec = (end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec);
>> + us = ((sec * 1000000) + end.tv_usec) - (start.tv_usec);
>> + info->duration_us = us;
>> + info->error = false;
>> +
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>
> perf does all of this and more. Let's not reinvent the wheel - just run
> the test.
You are suggesting to use perf stat + "test cmd" and remove
the above timestamp sampling, right?
>
>> +
>> +static void *consume_worker(void *arg)
>> +{
>> + struct worker_info *info = arg;
>> + struct timeval start, end;
>> + unsigned long i = 0;
>> + long sec, us;
>> + int *ptr;
>> +
>> + gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
>> +
>> + while (++i <= info->test_count) {
>> + while (__ptr_ring_empty(&ring))
>> + cpu_relax();
>> +
>> + ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(&ring);
>> + if ((unsigned long)ptr != i) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "consumer failed, ptr: %lu, i: %lu\n",
>> + (unsigned long)ptr, i);
>> + info->error = true;
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + gettimeofday(&end, NULL);
>> +
>> + if (!__ptr_ring_empty(&ring)) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "ring should be empty, test failed\n");
>> + info->error = true;
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + sec = (end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec);
>> + us = ((sec * 1000000) + end.tv_usec) - (start.tv_usec);
>> + info->duration_us = us;
>> + info->error = false;
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* test case for single producer single consumer */
>> +static void spsc_test(int size, int count)
>> +{
>> + struct worker_info producer, consumer;
>> + pthread_attr_t attr;
>> + void *res;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = ptr_ring_init(&ring, size, 0);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "init failed: %d\n", ret);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + producer.test_count = count;
>> + consumer.test_count = count;
>> +
>> + ret = pthread_attr_init(&attr);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "pthread attr init failed: %d\n", ret);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = pthread_create(&producer.tid, &attr,
>> + produce_worker, &producer);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "create producer thread failed: %d\n", ret);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = pthread_create(&consumer.tid, &attr,
>> + consume_worker, &consumer);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "create consumer thread failed: %d\n", ret);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = pthread_join(producer.tid, &res);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "join producer thread failed: %d\n", ret);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = pthread_join(consumer.tid, &res);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "join consumer thread failed: %d\n", ret);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (producer.error || consumer.error) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "spsc test failed\n");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + printf("ptr_ring(size:%d) perf spsc test for %d times, took %ld us + %ld us\n",
>> + size, count, producer.duration_us, consumer.duration_us);
>> +out:
>> + ptr_ring_cleanup(&ring, NULL);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void simple_test(int size, int count)
>> +{
>> + struct timeval start, end;
>> + long sec, us;
>> + int i = 0;
>> + int *ptr;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = ptr_ring_init(&ring, size, 0);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "init failed: %d\n", ret);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
>> +
>> + while (++i <= count) {
>> + ret = __ptr_ring_produce(&ring, &count);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "produce failed: %d\n", ret);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(&ring);
>> + if (ptr != &count) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "consume failed: %p\n", ptr);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + gettimeofday(&end, NULL);
>> + sec = (end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec);
>> + us = ((sec * 1000000) + end.tv_usec) - (start.tv_usec);
>> + printf("ptr_ring(size:%d) perf simple test for %d times, took %ld us\n",
>> + size, count, us);
>> +
>> +out:
>> + ptr_ring_cleanup(&ring, NULL);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> +{
>> + int count = 1000000;
>> + int size = 1000;
>> + int mode = 0;
>> + int opt;
>> +
>> + while ((opt = getopt(argc, argv, "N:s:m:")) != -1) {
>> + switch (opt) {
>> + case 'N':
>> + count = atoi(optarg);
>> + break;
>> + case 's':
>> + size = atoi(optarg);
>> + break;
>> + case 'm':
>> + mode = atoi(optarg);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (count <= 0) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "invalid test count, must be > 0\n");
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (size < MIN_RING_SIZE || size > MAX_RING_SIZE) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "invalid ring size, must be in %d-%d\n",
>> + MIN_RING_SIZE, MAX_RING_SIZE);
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + switch (mode) {
>> + case 0:
>> + simple_test(size, count);
>> + break;
>> + case 1:
>> + spsc_test(size, count);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + fprintf(stderr, "invalid test mode\n");
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.h b/tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..6bf2494
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ptr_ring/ptr_ring_test.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
>
> We already have hacks like this in the virtio test.
> Let's refactor not duplicate please.
Yes, I took most of below from virtio test.
But I am not sure I understand what you meant by refactoring.
Are you suggesting to use function from standard C library
instead of using the below "#if defined" hack?
I am not sure if all of the below function has a similiar
one in standard C library.
Would you be more specific about what does refactoring
mean?
>
>
>> +
>> +#ifndef _TEST_PTR_RING_IMPL_H
>> +#define _TEST_PTR_RING_IMPL_H
>> +
>> +#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__)
>> +static inline void cpu_relax(void)
>> +{
>> + asm volatile ("rep; nop" ::: "memory");
>> +}
>> +#elif defined(__aarch64__)
>> +static inline void cpu_relax(void)
>> +{
>> + asm volatile("yield" ::: "memory");
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +#define cpu_relax() assert(0)
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +static inline void barrier(void)
>> +{
>> + asm volatile("" ::: "memory");
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * This abuses the atomic builtins for thread fences, and
>> + * adds a compiler barrier.
>> + */
>> +#define smp_release() do { \
>> + barrier(); \
>> + __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE); \
>> +} while (0)
>> +
>> +#define smp_acquire() do { \
>> + __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE); \
>> + barrier(); \
>> +} while (0)
>> +
>> +#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
>> +#define smp_wmb() barrier()
>> +#else
>> +#define smp_wmb() smp_release()
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#define READ_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
>> +#define WRITE_ONCE(x, val) ((*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x)) = (val))
>> +#define SMP_CACHE_BYTES 64
>> +#define cache_line_size SMP_CACHE_BYTES
>> +#define unlikely(x) (__builtin_expect(!!(x), 0))
>> +#define likely(x) (__builtin_expect(!!(x), 1))
>> +#define ALIGN(x, a) (((x) + (a) - 1) / (a) * (a))
>> +#define SIZE_MAX (~(size_t)0)
>> +#define KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE SIZE_MAX
>> +#define spinlock_t pthread_spinlock_t
>> +#define gfp_t int
>> +#define __GFP_ZERO 0x1
>> +
>> +#define ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp __attribute__((aligned(SMP_CACHE_BYTES)))
>> +
>> +static void *kmalloc(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp)
>> +{
>> + void *p;
>> +
>> + p = memalign(64, size);
>> + if (!p)
>> + return p;
>> +
>> + if (gfp & __GFP_ZERO)
>> + memset(p, 0, size);
>> +
>> + return p;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void *kzalloc(unsigned int size, gfp_t flags)
>> +{
>> + return kmalloc(size, flags | __GFP_ZERO);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void *kmalloc_array(size_t n, size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>> +{
>> + if (size != 0 && n > SIZE_MAX / size)
>> + return NULL;
>> + return kmalloc(n * size, flags);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void *kcalloc(size_t n, size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>> +{
>> + return kmalloc_array(n, size, flags | __GFP_ZERO);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void kfree(void *p)
>> +{
>> + free(p);
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define kvmalloc_array kmalloc_array
>> +#define kvfree kfree
>> +
>> +static void spin_lock_init(spinlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> + int r = pthread_spin_init(lock, 0);
>> +
>> + assert(!r);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> + int ret = pthread_spin_lock(lock);
>> +
>> + assert(!ret);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> + int ret = pthread_spin_unlock(lock);
>> +
>> + assert(!ret);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void spin_lock_bh(spinlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> + spin_lock(lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void spin_unlock_bh(spinlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> + spin_unlock(lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void spin_lock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> + spin_lock(lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void spin_unlock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> + spin_unlock(lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void spin_lock_irqsave(spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long f)
>> +{
>> + spin_lock(lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void spin_unlock_irqrestore(spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long f)
>> +{
>> + spin_unlock(lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> +#endif
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-25 7:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-25 3:18 [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] add benchmark selftest and optimization " Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-25 3:18 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] selftests/ptr_ring: add benchmark application " Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-25 3:36 ` Jason Wang
2021-06-25 3:52 ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-27 6:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-06-28 1:42 ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-25 6:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-06-25 7:40 ` Yunsheng Lin [this message]
2021-06-25 3:18 ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] ptr_ring: make __ptr_ring_empty() checking more reliable Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-25 6:32 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-06-25 7:21 ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-25 7:30 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-06-25 8:33 ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-27 6:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-06-28 2:17 ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-25 6:39 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-06-25 9:20 ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-27 6:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-06-28 2:11 ` [Linuxarm] " Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-25 6:42 ` [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] add benchmark selftest and optimization for ptr_ring Michael S. Tsirkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9078c923-237f-db46-73a2-97ffd8e229ac@huawei.com \
--to=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@openeuler.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®