app/test: remove large lpm test head file
PATCH 1/1 app/test: remove large lpm test head file
remove the large file app/test/test_lpm_routes.h and add codes to auto-generate similar large route rule talbe which keeps same depth and IP class distribution as previous one in test_lpm_routes.h . With the rule table auto-generated at run time, the performance of looking up keep similar to that from pervious constant talbe.
--- app/test/test_lpm.c | 2 +- app/test/test_lpm_perf.c | 268 +- app/test/test_lpm_routes.h | 1076861 ----------------------------------------- 3 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 1076865 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 app/test/test_lpm_routes.h
app/test/test_lpm.c +1 -1
@@ -35,10 +35,10 @@#include <stdint.h> #include <stdlib.h> +#include <rte_ip.h> #include <rte_lpm.h> #include "test.h" -#include "test_lpm_routes.h" #include "test_xmmt_ops.h" #define TEST_LPM_ASSERT (cond) do { \
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +265 -3
299 lines not on this page · raw message
app/test/test_lpm_routes.h deleted +0 -0
Signature · 1 line
2.7.4
2016-09-26 17:37, Wei Dai:
Quoted 6 lines
remove the large file
app/test/test_lpm_routes.hand add codes to auto-generate similar large route rule talbe which keeps same depth and IP class distribution as previous one intest_lpm_routes.h. With the rule table auto-generated at run time, the performance of looking up keep similar to that from pervious constant talbe.
Quoted 7 lines
Signed-off-by Wei Dai <[email protected]>--- app/test/test_lpm.c | 2 +- app/test/test_lpm_perf.c | 268 +- app/test/test_lpm_routes.h | 1076861 ----------------------------------------- 3 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 1076865 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 app/test/test_lpm_routes.h
Whaouh! Good news :)
This file is 21 MB. It should help to reduce the size of a tarball. Are you working also on the IPv6 flavour? (7 MB to save)
Quoted 23 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 5:56 PM
To: Dai, Wei <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/test: remove large lpm test head file2016-09-26 17:37, Wei Dai:
Quoted 6 lines
remove the large file
app/test/test_lpm_routes.hand add codes to auto-generate similar large route rule talbe which keeps same depth and IP class distribution as previous one intest_lpm_routes.h. With the rule table auto-generated at run time, the performance of looking up keep similar to that from pervious constant talbe.Quoted 8 lines
Signed-off-by Wei Dai <[email protected]>--- app/test/test_lpm.c | 2 +- app/test/test_lpm_perf.c | 268 +- app/test/test_lpm_routes.h | 1076861 ----------------------------------------- 3 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 1076865 deletions(-) delete mode100644
app/test/test_lpm_routes.h
Quoted 3 lines
Whaouh! Good news :)
This file is 21 MB. It should help to reduce the size of a tarball. Are you working also on the IPv6 flavour? (7 MB to save)
Yes, I am designing an algorithm to auto-generate LPM IPv6 test route rule and test input data.
As the number of next table to be checked during a looking-up varies much more and depends on the pre-injected rule sets, to keep the similar performance for looking-up is more difficult than IPv4.
Regards
/Wei
Quoted 64 lines · Wei Dai
remove the large file
app/test/test_lpm_routes.hand add codes to auto-generate similar large route rule talbe which keeps same depth and IP class distribution as previous one intest_lpm_routes.h. With the rule table auto-generated at run time, the performance of looking up keep similar to that from pervious constant talbe.Signed-off-by Wei Dai <[email protected]>--- app/test/test_lpm.c | 2 +- app/test/test_lpm_perf.c | 268 +- app/test/test_lpm_routes.h | 1076861 ----------------------------------------- 3 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 1076865 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 app/test/test_lpm_routes.happ/test/test_lpm.c +1
-1@@ -35,10 +35,10 @@#include <stdint.h> #include <stdlib.h> +#include <rte_ip.h> #include <rte_lpm.h> #include "test.h" -#include "test_lpm_routes.h" #include "test_xmmt_ops.h" #define TEST_LPM_ASSERT (cond) do { \app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +11
-1@@ -34,14 +34,15 @@#include <stdio.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <stdlib.h> +#include <math.h> #include <rte_cycles.h> #include <rte_random.h> #include <rte_branch_prediction.h> #include <rte_lpm.h> +#include <rte_ip.h> #include "test.h" -#include "test_lpm_routes.h" #include "test_xmmt_ops.h" #define TEST_LPM_ASSERT (cond) do { \@@ -55,6 +56,265 @@#define BATCH_SIZE (1 << 12)#define BULK_SIZE 32 +#define MAX_RULE_NUM (1200000) + +struct route_rule { +uint32_t ip; +uint8_t depth; +}; + +struct route_rule large_route_table[MAX_RULE_NUM ]; +
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c line 77
Quoted 10 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +10
-0+static uint32_t num_route_entries;/* NUM_ROUTE_ENTRIES */ +#define NUM_ROUTE_ENTRIES num_route_entries + +struct route_rule_count { +uint32_t total; +uint32_t a[RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ]; +uint32_t b[RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ]; +uint32_t c[RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ]; +uint32_t left; +uint32_t abc[3 *RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ];
Can you provide some comments explaining how you are generating the rules to test with. For example, explain why have you split the sets of rules into three, a, b, and c, and how you use each of those three sets. Perhaps also provide a comment alongside each member of the structure above.
<snip>
Quoted 17 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +17
-0+static void init_rule_count (void ) +{ +uint32_t depth; +uint32_t count; + + rule_count.left =0 ; + count =0 ; + +for (depth =1 ; depth <=RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ; depth++) { + count += rule_count.a[depth-1 ]; +if (rule_count.a[depth-1 ]) + rule_count.abc[rule_count.left++] = depth; + } + +for (depth =1 ; depth <=RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ; depth++) { + count += rule_count.b[depth-1 ]; +if (rule_count.b[depth-1 ])
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c line 211
Quoted 10 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +10
-0+ rule_count.abc[rule_count.left++] =256 + depth; + } + +for (depth =1 ; depth <=RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ; depth++) { + count += rule_count.c[depth-1 ]; +if (rule_count.c[depth-1 ]) + rule_count.abc[rule_count.left++] =512 + depth; + } + rule_count.total = count; +}
Again, this needs a comment explaining what this function is doing, and how/why it is doing so.
Quoted 47 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +47
-0+ +static void generate_random_rule_prefix (uint32_t ip_class,uint8_t depth) +{ +#define IP_HEAD_MASK_A 0x00000000/* 0xxx */ +#define IP_HEAD_MASK_B 0x80000000/* 10xx */ +#define IP_HEAD_MASK_C 0xC0000000/* 110x */ +#define IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_A 1 +#define IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_B 2 +#define IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_C 3 + +uint32_t depth_1; +uint32_t class_depth; +uint32_t range; +uint32_t mask; +uint32_t step; +uint32_t start; +uint32_t fixed_bit_num; +uint32_t ip_head_mask; +uint32_t rule_num; +uint32_t k; +struct route_rule *ptr_rule; + + depth_1 = depth -1 ; + +if (ip_class ==0 ) {/* IP Address class A */ + fixed_bit_num =IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_A ; + ip_head_mask =IP_HEAD_MASK_A ; + rule_num = rule_count.a[depth_1]; + }else if (ip_class ==1 ) {/* IP Address class B */ + fixed_bit_num =IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_B ; + ip_head_mask =IP_HEAD_MASK_B ; + rule_num = rule_count.b[depth_1]; + }else {/* IP Address class C */ + fixed_bit_num =IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_C ; + ip_head_mask =IP_HEAD_MASK_C ; + rule_num = rule_count.c[depth_1]; + } + + class_depth = depth - fixed_bit_num; + range =1 << class_depth; + mask = range -1 ; +if (range <= rule_num) + step =1 ; +else + step =round ((double )range / rule_num); + + start =lrand48 () & mask;
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c line 268
Quoted 10 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +10
-0+ ptr_rule = &large_route_table[num_route_entries]; +for (k =0 ; k < rule_num; k++) { + ptr_rule->ip = (start << (RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH - depth)) + | ip_head_mask; + ptr_rule->depth = depth; + ptr_rule++; + start = (start + step) & mask; + } + num_route_entries += rule_num; +}
Again, comment explaining function, please.
Quoted 37 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +37
-0+ +static void insert_rule_in_random_pos (uint32_t ip,uint8_t depth) +{ +uint32_t pos; +int try_count =0 ; +struct route_rule tmp; + +do { + pos =lrand48 (); + try_count++; + }while ((try_count <10 ) && (pos > num_route_entries)); + +if ((pos > num_route_entries) || (pos >=MAX_RULE_NUM )) + pos = num_route_entries >>1 ; + + tmp = large_route_table[pos]; + large_route_table[pos].ip = ip; + large_route_table[pos].depth = depth; +if (num_route_entries <MAX_RULE_NUM ) + large_route_table[num_route_entries++] = tmp; +} + +static void generate_large_route_rule_table (void ) +{ +uint32_t idx; +uint32_t ip_class; +uint8_t depth; + +memset (large_route_table,0 ,sizeof (large_route_table)); +init_rule_count (); + + idx =0 ; + do { + depth = (rule_count.abc[idx] & 0xFF); + ip_class = rule_count.abc[idx] >> 8; + + generate_random_rule_prefix(ip_class, depth);
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c line 315
Quoted 10 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +10
-0+ + rule_count.left--; + idx++; + }while (rule_count.left >0 ); + +insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ),8 ); +insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (10 ,2 ,23 ,147 ),32 ); +insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (192 ,168 ,100 ,10 ),24 ); +insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (192 ,168 ,25 ,100 ),24 ); +insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (192 ,168 ,129 ,124 ),32 );
Why are you inserting 5 rules at random positions at the end? Explanatory comment needed, thanks.
When running the code with the new auto-generated table, the rule add time is 5x longer than that with the original test. Have you investigated what causes this, and is there something that can be done to work around it?
Regards,
/Bruce
Hi, Bruce
How about your test result for this patch ? Especially on performance of rule looking-up ? There are also some replies for your comments as below.
Thanks
/ Wei
Quoted 82 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Richardson, Bruce
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:07 PM
To: Dai, Wei <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/test: remove large lpm test head fileQuoted 21 lines · Wei Dai
remove the large file
app/test/test_lpm_routes.hand add codes to auto-generate similar large route rule talbe which keeps same depth and IP class distribution as previous one intest_lpm_routes.h. With the rule table auto-generated at run time, the performance of looking up keep similar to that from pervious constant talbe.Signed-off-by Wei Dai <[email protected]>--- app/test/test_lpm.c | 2 +- app/test/test_lpm_perf.c | 268 +- app/test/test_lpm_routes.h | 1076861 ----------------------------------------- 3 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 1076865 deletions(-) delete mode100644
app/test/test_lpm_routes.happ/test/test_lpm.c index renamed from app/test/test_lpm.c +0
-0b6ad2eb..0952f52 100644
app/test/test_lpm.c +0
-0@@ -35,10 +35,10 @@#include <stdint.h> app/test/test_lpm.c line 44
Quoted 10 lines
app/test/test_lpm.c +1
-1#include <stdlib.h> +#include <rte_ip.h> #include <rte_lpm.h> #include "test.h" -#include "test_lpm_routes.h" #include "test_xmmt_ops.h" #define TEST_LPM_ASSERT (cond) do{ \
Quoted 11 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c index renamed from app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +0
-058eb415..5582ef4 100644
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +1
-0@@ -34,14 +34,15 @@#include <stdio.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <stdlib.h> +#include <math.h> #include <rte_cycles.h> app/test/test_lpm_perf.c line 48
Quoted 10 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +1
-1#include <rte_random.h> #include <rte_branch_prediction.h> #include <rte_lpm.h> +#include <rte_ip.h> #include "test.h" -#include "test_lpm_routes.h" #include "test_xmmt_ops.h" #define TEST_LPM_ASSERT (cond) do{ \
Quoted 20 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +16
-0@@ -55,6 +56,265 @@#define BATCH_SIZE (1 << 12)#define BULK_SIZE 32 +#define MAX_RULE_NUM (1200000) + +struct route_rule { +uint32_t ip; +uint8_t depth; +}; + +struct route_rule large_route_table[MAX_RULE_NUM ]; + +static uint32_t num_route_entries;/* NUM_ROUTE_ENTRIES */ #define +NUM_ROUTE_ENTRIES num_route_entries + +struct route_rule_count { +uint32_t total; +uint32_t a[RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ]; +uint32_t b[RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ];
Quoted 8 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c line 77
Quoted 3 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +3
-0+uint32_t c[RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ]; +uint32_t left; +uint32_t abc[3 *RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ];Can you provide some comments explaining how you are generating the rules to test with. For example, explain why have you split the sets of rules into three, a, b, and c, and how you use each of those three sets. Perhaps also provide a comment alongside each member of the structure above.
a/b/c means IP address class. These class doesn't count IP address for local network. Because the previous large route rule table was just dumped from a real router and as to match similar performance, I design to keep similar depth and IP address coverage as previous constant table. All the numbers of each depth of each IP class are just got from previous constant table.
Quoted 24 lines
<snip>
Quoted 22 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +22
-0+static void init_rule_count (void ) +{ +uint32_t depth; +uint32_t count; + + rule_count.left =0 ; + count =0 ; + +for (depth =1 ; depth <=RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ; depth++) { + count += rule_count.a[depth-1 ]; +if (rule_count.a[depth-1 ]) + rule_count.abc[rule_count.left++] = depth; + } + +for (depth =1 ; depth <=RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ; depth++) { + count += rule_count.b[depth-1 ]; +if (rule_count.b[depth-1 ]) + rule_count.abc[rule_count.left++] =256 + depth; + } + +for (depth =1 ; depth <=RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH ; depth++) { + count += rule_count.c[depth-1 ];
Quoted 8 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c line 211
Quoted 5 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +5
-0+if (rule_count.c[depth-1 ]) + rule_count.abc[rule_count.left++] =512 + depth; + } + rule_count.total = count; +}Again, this needs a comment explaining what this function is doing, and how/why it is doing so.
I will give more comments to explain it in v2 patch.
By the way, rule_count.abc[ ] is for quicker generation of rules.
Quoted 49 lines
Quoted 49 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +48
-0+ +static void generate_random_rule_prefix (uint32_t ip_class,uint8_t +depth) {#define IP_HEAD_MASK_A 0x00000000/* 0xxx */ #define +IP_HEAD_MASK_B 0x80000000/* 10xx */ #define IP_HEAD_MASK_C +0xC0000000 /* 110x */ #define IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_A 1 #define +IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_B 2 #define IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_C 3 + +uint32_t depth_1; +uint32_t class_depth; +uint32_t range; +uint32_t mask; +uint32_t step; +uint32_t start; +uint32_t fixed_bit_num; +uint32_t ip_head_mask; +uint32_t rule_num; +uint32_t k; +struct route_rule *ptr_rule; + + depth_1 = depth -1 ; + +if (ip_class ==0 ) {/* IP Address class A */ + fixed_bit_num =IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_A ; + ip_head_mask =IP_HEAD_MASK_A ; + rule_num = rule_count.a[depth_1]; + }else if (ip_class ==1 ) {/* IP Address class B */ + fixed_bit_num =IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_B ; + ip_head_mask =IP_HEAD_MASK_B ; + rule_num = rule_count.b[depth_1]; + }else {/* IP Address class C */ + fixed_bit_num =IP_HEAD_BIT_NUM_C ; + ip_head_mask =IP_HEAD_MASK_C ; + rule_num = rule_count.c[depth_1]; + } + + class_depth = depth - fixed_bit_num; + range =1 << class_depth; + mask = range -1 ; +if (range <= rule_num) + step =1 ; +else + step =round ((double )range / rule_num); + + start =lrand48 () & mask; + ptr_rule = &large_route_table[num_route_entries]; +for (k =0 ; k < rule_num; k++) { + ptr_rule->ip = (start << (RTE_LPM_MAX_DEPTH - depth)) + | ip_head_mask;
Quoted 8 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c line 268
Quoted 6 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +6
-0+ ptr_rule->depth = depth; + ptr_rule++; + start = (start + step) & mask; + } + num_route_entries += rule_num; +}Again, comment explaining function, please.
V2 patch will give more annotations.
Quoted 41 lines
Quoted 41 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +40
-0+ +static void insert_rule_in_random_pos (uint32_t ip,uint8_t depth) { +uint32_t pos; +int try_count =0 ; +struct route_rule tmp; + +do { + pos =lrand48 (); + try_count++; + }while ((try_count <10 ) && (pos > num_route_entries)); + +if ((pos > num_route_entries) || (pos >=MAX_RULE_NUM )) + pos = num_route_entries >>1 ; + + tmp = large_route_table[pos]; + large_route_table[pos].ip = ip; + large_route_table[pos].depth = depth; +if (num_route_entries <MAX_RULE_NUM ) + large_route_table[num_route_entries++] = tmp; } + +static void generate_large_route_rule_table (void ) +{ +uint32_t idx; +uint32_t ip_class; +uint8_t depth; + +memset (large_route_table,0 ,sizeof (large_route_table)); +init_rule_count (); + + idx =0 ; +do { + depth = (rule_count.abc[idx] &0xFF ); + ip_class = rule_count.abc[idx] >>8 ; + +generate_random_rule_prefix (ip_class, depth); + + rule_count.left--; + idx++; + }while (rule_count.left >0 ); +
Quoted 8 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c line 315
Quoted 5 lines
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +5
-0+insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ),8 ); +insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (10 ,2 ,23 ,147 ),32 ); +insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (192 ,168 ,100 ,10 ),24 ); +insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (192 ,168 ,25 ,100 ),24 ); +insert_rule_in_random_pos (IPv4 (192 ,168 ,129 ,124 ),32 );Why are you inserting 5 rules at random positions at the end? Explanatory comment needed, thanks.
This just keeps the same local IP address class and depth as previous constant table. Place these local IP address in random position in the rule set rather than the end of it or adjacent 5 lines.
Quoted 5 lines
When running the code with the new auto-generated table, the rule add time is 5x longer than that with the original test. Have you investigated what causes this, and is there something that can be done to work around it?
I have designed a debug platform to trace each loop and each branch passed through during rule adding, In previous constant large rule table, there are many (about ~78%) reappearance of same prefix (same IP prefix + same depth). But auto-generated rule table has much lower reappearance. This much affect compute quantity in rule adding.
To work around it, I assume that we may update the algorithm to keep same reappearance rate in each depth and each IP address class.
It will be much more complicated one and need much more efforts to tune it.
As the performance of looking-up from current auto-generated rule sets is similar as previous one, I have not gone on to pursuit much better performance of rule adding/deleting.
Quoted 3 lines
Regards,
/Bruce
PATCH v2 1/1 app/test: remove large lpm test head file
In reply to Wei Dairemove the large file app/test/test_lpm_routes.h and add codes to auto-generate similar large route rule talbe which keeps same depth and IP class distribution as previous one in test_lpm_routes.h . With the rule table auto-generated at run time, the performance of looking up keep similar to that from pervious constant talbe.
--- app/test/test_lpm.c | 2 +- app/test/test_lpm_perf.c | 273 +- app/test/test_lpm_routes.h | 1076861 ----------------------------------------- 3 files changed, 271 insertions(+), 1076865 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 app/test/test_lpm_routes.h
app/test/test_lpm.c +1 -1
@@ -35,10 +35,10 @@#include <stdint.h> #include <stdlib.h> +#include <rte_ip.h> #include <rte_lpm.h> #include "test.h" -#include "test_lpm_routes.h" #include "test_xmmt_ops.h" #define TEST_LPM_ASSERT (cond) do { \
app/test/test_lpm_perf.c +270 -3
304 lines not on this page · raw message
app/test/test_lpm_routes.h deleted +0 -0
Signature · 1 line
2.7.4
Quoted 8 lines · Wei Dai
remove the large file
app/test/test_lpm_routes.hand add codes to auto-generate similar large route rule talbe which keeps same depth and IP class distribution as previous one intest_lpm_routes.h. With the rule table auto-generated at run time, the performance of looking up keep similar to that from pervious constant talbe.Signed-off-by Wei Dai <[email protected]>---
Can you perhaps indicate what has changed between v1 and v2, it helps those of us looking to review the patch. [The best way to do so is to place details of diffs in each version underneath the cut line "---".]
Regards,
/Bruce
Quoted 14 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Richardson, Bruce
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:42 PM
To: Dai, Wei <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] app/test: remove large lpm test head fileQuoted 6 lines · Wei Dai
remove the large file
app/test/test_lpm_routes.hand add codes to auto-generate similar large route rule talbe which keeps same depth and IP class distribution as previous one intest_lpm_routes.h. With the rule table auto-generated at run time, the performance of looking up keep similar to that from pervious constant talbe.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Signed-off-by Wei Dai <[email protected]>---
Can you perhaps indicate what has changed between v1 and v2, it helps those of us looking to review the patch. [The best way to do so is to place details of diffs in each version underneath the cut line "---".]
---
Changes between v2 and v1 include:
1. add more annotations to explain why and how the data structures and algorithm are designed.
2. simplify the implementation of same algorithm by removing fields total, left, abc[ ] in struct route_rule_count.
Quoted 3 lines
Regards,
/Bruce
Thomas Monjalon
Applied2016-09-28 01:38, Wei Dai:
Quoted 7 lines
remove the large file
app/test/test_lpm_routes.hand add codes to auto-generate similar large route rule talbe which keeps same depth and IP class distribution as previous one intest_lpm_routes.h. With the rule table auto-generated at run time, the performance of looking up keep similar to that from pervious constant talbe.Signed-off-by Wei Dai <[email protected]>
Applied, thanks
There is a comment which may be difficult to understand for newcomers. Indeed it refers to the old file app/test/test_lpm_routes.h. However it is not really an issue as this file is a *huge* part of the DPDK history ;)