From: zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn>
To: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
"Yang, Qiming" <qiming.yang@intel.com>,
"Wu, Wenjun1" <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, maobibo@loongson.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: add proper memory barriers for some Rx functions
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 20:58:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <13eea5e4-b059-32ae-c757-9be6e6169dfe@loongson.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D878C7@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
Hi Morten,
Thanks for your comments.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 2:27PM, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> From: Zhang, Qi Z [mailto:qi.z.zhang@intel.com]
>> Sent: Friday, 28 April 2023 05.44
>>
>>> From: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>
>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 5:06 PM
>>>
>>> Segmentation fault has been observed while running the
>>> ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro() function to receive packets on the Loongson 3C5000
>>> processor which has 64 cores and 4 NUMA nodes.
>>>
>>> From the ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro() function, we found that as long as the first
>>> packet has the EOP bit set, and the length of this packet is less than or
>> equal
>>> to rxq->crc_len, the segmentation fault will definitely happen even though
>>> on the other platforms, such as X86.
>>>
>>> Because when processd the first packet the first_seg->next will be NULL, if
>> at
>>> the same time this packet has the EOP bit set and its length is less than or
>>> equal to rxq->crc_len, the following loop will be excecuted:
>>>
>>> for (lp = first_seg; lp->next != rxm; lp = lp->next)
>>> ;
>>>
>>> We know that the first_seg->next will be NULL under this condition. So the
>>> expression of lp->next->next will cause the segmentation fault.
>>>
>>> Normally, the length of the first packet with EOP bit set will be greater
>> than
>>> rxq->crc_len. However, the out-of-order execution of CPU may make the
>>> read ordering of the status and the rest of the descriptor fields in this
>>> function not be correct. The related codes are as following:
>>>
>>> rxdp = &rx_ring[rx_id];
>>> #1 staterr = rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxdp->wb.upper.status_error);
>>>
>>> if (!(staterr & IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD))
>>> break;
>>>
>>> #2 rxd = *rxdp;
>>>
>>> The sentence #2 may be executed before sentence #1. This action is likely to
>>> make the ready packet zero length. If the packet is the first packet and has
>>> the EOP bit set, the above segmentation fault will happen.
>>>
>>> So, we should add rte_rmb() to ensure the read ordering be correct. We also
>>> did the same thing in the ixgbe_recv_pkts() function to make the rxd data be
>>> valid even thougth we did not find segmentation fault in this function.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>> - Make the calling of rte_rmb() for all platforms
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 3 +++
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>>> index c9d6ca9efe..302a5ab7ff 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>>> @@ -1823,6 +1823,8 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf
>>> **rx_pkts,
>>> staterr = rxdp->wb.upper.status_error;
>>> if (!(staterr & rte_cpu_to_le_32(IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD)))
>>> break;
>>> +
>>> + rte_rmb();
>> So "volatile" does not prevent re-order with Loongson compiler?
> "Volatile" does not prevent re-ordering on any compiler. "Volatile" only prevents caching of the variable marked volatile.
>
> https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/CON02-C.+Do+not+use+volatile+as+a+synchronization+primitive
>
> Thinking out loud: I don't know the performance cost of rte_rmb(); perhaps using atomic accesses with the optimal memory ordering would be a better solution in the long term.
Yes, rte_rmb() probably had side effects on the performance. I will use
a better solution to solve the problem in the V2 patch.
>>
>>> rxd = *rxdp;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -2122,6 +2124,7 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct
>>> rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts,
>>> if (!(staterr & IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD))
>>> break;
>>>
>>> + rte_rmb();
>>> rxd = *rxdp;
>>>
>>> PMD_RX_LOG(DEBUG, "port_id=%u queue_id=%u rx_id=%u "
>>> --
>>> 2.31.1
Best regards,
Min
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-04 12:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-24 9:05 Min Zhou
2023-04-28 3:43 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-04-28 6:27 ` Morten Brørup
2023-05-04 12:58 ` zhoumin [this message]
2023-05-04 12:42 ` zhoumin
2023-05-01 13:29 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-05-04 6:13 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-05-05 1:45 ` zhoumin
2023-05-04 13:16 ` zhoumin
2023-05-04 13:21 ` Morten Brørup
2023-05-04 13:33 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-05-05 2:42 ` zhoumin
2023-05-06 1:30 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-05-05 1:54 ` zhoumin
2023-05-06 10:23 ` [PATCH v3] " Min Zhou
2023-05-08 6:03 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-05-15 2:10 ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-06-12 10:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-12 11:58 ` zhoumin
2023-06-12 12:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-13 1:42 ` zhoumin
2023-06-13 3:30 ` Jiawen Wu
2023-06-13 10:12 ` zhoumin
2023-06-14 10:58 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-06-13 9:25 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-06-20 15:52 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-21 6:50 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-06-13 9:44 ` [PATCH v4] " Min Zhou
2023-06-13 10:20 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-06-13 12:11 ` Zhang, Qi Z
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=13eea5e4-b059-32ae-c757-9be6e6169dfe@loongson.cn \
--to=zhoumin@loongson.cn \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=maobibo@loongson.cn \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=qiming.yang@intel.com \
--cc=wenjun1.wu@intel.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).