From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (mail-wm0-f67.google.com [74.125.82.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CC21D8E for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:09:29 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id r78so6062942wme.5 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:09:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=ekAYmRKgGJNjtvsyDpuR86rwNzJZ/py0AI89kK1njfg=; b=bGUBwgedkzYslAi4bsIZxti0xBUEkyreBiPHO88LBjHlwe+1nPx0Isy3SPEGsF69Rw fDwKtslEjpqHUU1Zo6HQNwXqNSGx6lW8qoPfy7NofC+6OGTuJUfaXmk8VYjB7P7BjjHt 6luv634O7pzhiodZBXVQnm4TR9gmkxteNtcNt4w3JXV9dweCVMmjNlvnI/LDHoUKd26T y4KIV9rvWKsuMl1ICV0WwxlbLjgFZfDL31eA8BAXjgLBs8H8gtKYQ3LW8K8xTzXBTEOk 6m2l8DLilBEgCR7BYQT48sEmX/hMIz8rkk92YHPxAyidKlupmi4yyC0rQQxn/oEEeU2U x1ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ekAYmRKgGJNjtvsyDpuR86rwNzJZ/py0AI89kK1njfg=; b=W8wyXqcILLBea9rLYiDX/osMAjKzLy6fpjacVRxdgmgPNEeXd10QDX0GK0KBIV02Mk qp6sHR5kyxhp/x79/VIqBl/hxN05u3z5IWWEL2f0kv/SR/fEXlieYeG21SJ3vUK3E5D6 ExoKZ2Ny/dRFBPWlElLQAw+q9D66OZoSYuYiU/eJTFeNnsiA4MkWq7ffQbJz2LFzOCHL 8z+b/iW7hTi24VWMUeoNvTAGMAj+17LXDlkHJ+qixNLc27ZpANz/i7ipCVDxTNUG/IrX ghnchI5AwfClMVyC6EPZWkdex5OTHd7AAXNo2fsI6xc9w0qm6Vmx3C/vO1dtQTh7K7Rj Cawg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIOcZOqBRXnhNEhhYYLWxq8cUW9FStazxXV0wR1CqRP7V7V0SRr 43F37aw3wgSImA0LTQZS4M8vqw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotBN9FiGOnOw9mXPzZqxWISazS5IuyHIvl0BNkWAQx+mDBbfV4Ry3QsKj55EJoQGbHRxjR/3Q== X-Received: by 10.80.245.26 with SMTP id t26mr8207533edm.301.1513181369225; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from bidouze.vm.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z56sm1647258edb.72.2017.12.13.08.09.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:09:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:09:16 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet To: Matan Azrad Cc: Adrien Mazarguil , Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stable@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20171213160916.e3rmxmhfhqz72wco@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <1509637324-13525-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <1513175370-16583-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <1513175370-16583-5-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <20171213151641.g42zr7zupbsdgxsv@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] net/failsafe: fix removed device handling 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: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:09:29 -0000 On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:48:46PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi Gaetan > Thanks for the review. > Some comments.. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.rivet@6wind.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 5:17 PM > > To: Matan Azrad > > Cc: Adrien Mazarguil ; Thomas Monjalon > > ; dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] net/failsafe: fix removed device handling > > > > Hi Matan, > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 02:29:30PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > > > There is time between the physical removal of the device until > > > sub-device PMDs get a RMV interrupt. At this time DPDK PMDs and > > > applications still don't know about the removal and may call > > > sub-device control operation which should return an error. > > > > > > In previous code this error is reported to the application contrary to > > > fail-safe principle that the app should not be aware of device removal. > > > > > > Add an removal check in each relevant control command error flow and > > > prevent an error report to application when the sub-device is removed. > > > > > > Fixes: a46f8d5 ("net/failsafe: add fail-safe PMD") > > > Fixes: b737a1e ("net/failsafe: support flow API") > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > > > > This patch is not a fix. > > It relies on an eth_dev API evolution. Without this evolution, this patch is > > meaningless and would break compilation if backported in stable branch. > > > > It is a fix because the bug is finally solved by this patch. > I agree that it cannot be backported itself, but maybe all the series should be backported. > Other idea: > Add new patch which documents the bug and backport it. > Remove it in this patch and remove cc stable from it. > What do you think? > I think you could write a crude version that would not rely on the ethdev evolution (checking sdev->remove only), which would be incomplete but still better than nothing. And why not in this patch document the issue. Without any dependency outside failsafe, this could be backported. Then complete the fix with the API evolution if the new devops is accepted. > > Please remove those tags. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad > > > --- > > > drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_flow.c | 18 ++++++++++------- > > > drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > ------ > > > drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h | 10 ++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > < ... > > > > > > +/* > > > + * Check if sub device was removed. > > > + */ > > > +static inline int > > > +fs_is_removed(struct sub_device *sdev) { > > > + if (sdev->remove == 1 || rte_eth_dev_is_removed(PORT_ID(sdev)) > > != 0) > > > + return 1; > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > > Have you considered adding this check within the subdev iterator itself? > > I think it would prevent you from having to add it to each return value > > checks. > > > > It is still MT-unsafe anyway. > > > > This fix doesn't come to solve the MT issue, It comes to solve the error report to application because of removal. > Adding the check in subdev iterator doesn't make sense for this issue. > > Matan. If you add this check in the iterator itself, you would skip removed devices before attempting operating upon them, right? Then it should probably help with your issue, unless you tested it and verified that it didnt? Something like this: ---8<--- diff --git a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h index d81cc3ca6..62ddc0689 100644 --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h @@ -316,8 +316,12 @@ fs_find_next(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, subs = PRIV(dev)->subs; tail = PRIV(dev)->subs_tail; while (sid < tail) { + if (min_state > DEV_PROBED && + fs_is_removed(&sub[sid])) + goto next; if (subs[sid].state >= min_state) break; +next: sid++; } *sid_out = sid; --->8--- Only issue being that it is completely racy, but as this MT-unsafe property is inescapable we might as well ignore it and go for KISS. If that's enough, I would prefer instead of having this additional check added to all rte_eth operations. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND