From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, ophirmu@mellanox.com,
bernard.iremonger@intel.com, rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/6] ethdev: complete closing of port
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:32:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1858661.D0KfzqaYm0@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <97e9f9fa-067e-57bf-6ade-3745cd65c703@solarflare.com>
18/10/2018 10:33, Andrew Rybchenko:
> On 10/18/18 4:24 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > After closing a port, it cannot be restarted.
> > So there is no reason to not free all associated resources.
> >
> > The last step was done with rte_eth_dev_detach() which is deprecated.
> > Instead of blindly removing the associated rte_device, the driver should
> > check if no more port (ethdev, cryptodev, etc) is open for the device.
> >
> > The last ethdev freeing which were done by rte_eth_dev_detach(),
> > are now done at the end of rte_eth_dev_close().
> >
> > Some drivers does not allocate MAC addresses dynamically or separately.
> > In those cases, the pointer is set to NULL, in order to avoid wrongly
> > freeing them in rte_eth_dev_release_port().
> >
> > A closed port will have the state RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED which is
> > considered as invalid by rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port().
> > So validity is not checked anymore for closed ports in testpmd.
> >
> > If the driver is trying to free the port again, the function
> > rte_eth_dev_release_port() will abort with -ENODEV error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>
> I've tested the patch series together with [1].
There are 2 use cases to consider:
1/ rte_eth_dev_close + rte_dev_remove
2/ rte_dev_remove without prior close
> As I expected it makes problems and resource leaks if
> rte_eth_dev_close() is used.
>
> Everything is OK if I do port stop and detach (with net/sfc
> patch which does close from uninit).
This is the case #2.
It requires some PMD updates to avoid the leaks.
It was buggy in previous releases too, because it was not managing
devices with multiple ports.
I think we should continue recommending the use case #1 in 18.11,
and let time for PMDs to be fixed for use case #2.
It PMDs can be fixed in 18.11, it is even better.
> If I do port stop, close and detach, the last one returns
> error since the device already released and net/sfc uninit
> is never called.
This is the case #1.
The bug is assuming that the port is not freed when removing the device.
We should just skip closed ports without any error.
I can fix it in a v6.
> Basically it should be one function which is called in both
> cases: dev_close or pci_device remove. Similar changes
> should be done in many PCI drivers.
Yes, dev_close must be called for all non-closed ports of a PCI device
to remove.
Usually, PMDs have an implementation of dev_close which is different
of the uninit function called with rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove()
or rte_eth_dev_destroy(). They have no good reason to be different:
typedef int (*ethdev_uninit_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *ethdev);
typedef void (*eth_dev_close_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev);
> If I drop the patch, everything seems to be work fine
> from the first sight.
> May be it should be removed from the patchset and
> considered separately.
No, I think I should just fix the use case #1,
and let PMDs fixing the use case #2 when they have a chance.
In my opinion, the use case #2 was never advertised before,
so it is just opening the way for the support of this use case.
> [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=1966
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-18 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-07 23:39 [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: complete closing to free all resources Thomas Monjalon
2018-09-10 8:03 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-09-10 8:42 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-09-10 8:54 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-09-12 14:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-09-12 15:44 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-09-28 12:46 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-09 22:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-09 22:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ethdev: complete closing of port Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-10 6:15 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-10 7:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-10 7:50 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-10 8:39 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-10 15:01 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-10 16:43 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-10 18:01 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-10 19:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-14 23:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] ethdev port freeing Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-14 23:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] ethdev: free all common data when releasing port Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-16 11:16 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-16 12:22 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-16 12:47 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-16 12:52 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-16 12:55 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-14 23:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] ethdev: complete closing of port Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-16 11:24 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-16 12:25 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 1:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] ethdev port freeing Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 1:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] app/testpmd: allow detaching a port not closed Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 2:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 6:26 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-17 8:20 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 10:30 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-17 11:33 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 1:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] ethdev: free all common data when releasing port Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 7:13 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-17 8:22 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 1:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] ethdev: remove release function for secondary process Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 7:25 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-17 9:27 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 1:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] ethdev: complete closing of port Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 2:12 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-17 10:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] ethdev port freeing Shreyansh Jain
2018-10-17 11:31 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 1:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/6] " Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 1:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/6] app/testpmd: fix ports list after removing several at once Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 10:40 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-18 11:29 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 11:41 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-18 14:21 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 16:42 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-18 17:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 11:49 ` Wisam Monther
2018-10-18 13:22 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-18 1:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/6] app/testpmd: allow detaching a port not closed Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 7:45 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-18 10:51 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-18 11:24 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 1:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/6] ethdev: fix doxygen comments of shared data fields Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 7:11 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-18 1:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/6] ethdev: free all common data when releasing port Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 7:13 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-18 1:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/6] ethdev: remove release function for secondary process Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 7:15 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-18 1:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/6] ethdev: complete closing of port Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-18 8:33 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-18 9:32 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2018-10-19 2:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/6] ethdev port freeing Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-19 2:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/6] app/testpmd: update port list for multiple removals Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-19 14:32 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-19 2:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/6] app/testpmd: allow detaching a port not closed Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-19 14:32 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2018-10-19 2:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/6] ethdev: fix doxygen comments of shared data fields Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-19 2:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 4/6] ethdev: free all common data when releasing port Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-19 2:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 5/6] ethdev: remove release function for secondary process Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-19 2:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 6/6] ethdev: complete closing of port Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-19 10:13 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-10-22 15:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/6] ethdev port freeing Ferruh Yigit
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=1858661.D0KfzqaYm0@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=ophirmu@mellanox.com \
--cc=rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.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).