From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9142A5B for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:53:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2017 03:53:46 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,274,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="812217934" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2017 03:53:45 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:56:10 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon , Remy Horton Message-ID: <20170123115610.GG10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1484899493-11051-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <6e706e07-455f-de57-4f85-eb4e506528f1@intel.com> <4d897cf9-f1f4-d924-10cd-63e95b12b411@intel.com> <20170122024529.GZ10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <3451afa6-12fb-dc65-f379-873facc0301c@intel.com> <20170123103417.GB10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <53a23156-dcb9-b41f-c27c-5bd13d5874f6@intel.com> <20170123112445.GE10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <90752e37-444b-e2bf-6d4b-1bf2eda38deb@intel.com> <20170123114050.GF10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170123114050.GF10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix wrong memset X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:53:48 -0000 On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:40:50PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:32:23AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 1/23/2017 11:24 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:05:25AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > >>>>>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +- > > >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > >>>>>>>> index 4790faf..61f44e2 100644 > > >>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > >>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > >>>>>>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev * > > >>>>>>>> return NULL; > > >>>>>>>> } > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> - memset(&rte_eth_devices[port_id], 0, sizeof(*eth_dev->data)); > > >>>>>>>> + memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_data)); > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Not directly related to the this issue, but, after fix, this may have > > >>>>>>> issues with secondary process. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> There were patches sent to fix this. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I mean this one: > > >>>>>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html > > >>>>> > > >>>>> d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple process > > >>>>> model") should have fixed it. > > >>>> > > >>>> Think about case, where secondary process uses a virtual PMD, which does > > >>>> a rte_eth_dev_allocate() call, shouldn't this corrupt primary process > > >>>> device data? > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it may. However, I doubt that's the typical usage. > > >> > > >> But this is a use case, and broken now, > > > > > > I thought it was broken since the beginning? > > > > No, memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], ...) breaks it. > > Oh, you were talking about that particular case Remy's patch meant to > fix. > > > >> and fix is known. > > > > > > And there is already a fix? > > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html > > Yes, it should fix that issue. Well, few more thoughts: it may fix the crash issue Remy saw, but it looks like more a workaround to me. Basically, if primary and secondary shares a same port id, they should point to same device. Otherwise, primary process may use eth_dev->data for a device A, while the secondary process may use it for another device, as you said, it could be a vdev. In such case, there is no way we could continue safely. That said, the given patch avoids the total reset of eth_dev->data, while it continues reset the eth_dev->data->name, which is wrong. So it's not a proper fix. Again, I think it's more about the usage. If primary starts with a nic device A, while the secondary starts with a nic device B, there is no way they could work well (unless they use different port id). --yliu > One question: do Remy or you regularly > run some multiple process test cases (and with vdev both in primary > and secondary process)?