From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] test/pmd_perf: fix the way to drain the
	port
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:28:16 +0000
Message-ID: <18e7f9d6-f42e-d569-b26a-30c61b98adca@intel.com>
References: <20190102155535.29488-1-julien.meunier@nokia.com>
 <20190203194218.46480-1-julien.meunier@nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: stable@dpdk.org, cunming.liang@intel.com
To: Julien Meunier <julien.meunier@nokia.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190203194218.46480-1-julien.meunier@nokia.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 2/3/2019 7:42 PM, Julien Meunier wrote:
> If the port has received less than ``pkt_per_port`` packets (for
> example, the port has missed some packets), the test is in an infinite
> loop.
> 
> Instead of expecting a number of packet to receive, let the port to be
> drained by itself. If no more packets are received, the test can
> continue.
> 
> Fixes: 002ade70e933 ("app/test: measure cycles per packet in Rx/Tx")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julien Meunier <julien.meunier@nokia.com>
> ---
> v2:
> * rename commit title
> * fix nb_free display
> ---
>  test/test/test_pmd_perf.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/test/test/test_pmd_perf.c b/test/test/test_pmd_perf.c
> index f5095c8..c7e2df3 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_pmd_perf.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_pmd_perf.c
> @@ -493,16 +493,16 @@ main_loop(__rte_unused void *args)
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < conf->nb_ports; i++) {
>  		portid = conf->portlist[i];
> -		int nb_free = pkt_per_port;
> +		int nb_free = 0;
>  		do { /* dry out */
>  			nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst(portid, 0,
>  						 pkts_burst, MAX_PKT_BURST);
>  			nb_tx = 0;
>  			while (nb_tx < nb_rx)
>  				rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts_burst[nb_tx++]);
> -			nb_free -= nb_rx;
> -		} while (nb_free != 0);
> -		printf("free %d mbuf left in port %u\n", pkt_per_port, portid);
> +			nb_free += nb_rx;
> +		} while (nb_rx != 0);
> +		printf("free %d mbuf left in port %u\n", nb_free, portid);


In the test logic there is an expectation that 'pkt_per_port' packets will be
received.
We are losing that intention here with this update. What do you think updating
the log to include it, like:
"free %d (expected %d) mbuf left in port %u\n", nb_free, pkt_per_port, portid