From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627D416E for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:44:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Dec 2017 03:44:22 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,363,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="183806888" Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.96]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2017 03:44:20 -0800 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.67]) by IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:44:19 +0000 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Matan Azrad , Neil Horman , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan_Rivet?= CC: Thomas Monjalon , "Wu, Jingjing" , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership Thread-Index: AQHTaEBN2MZq7Ar1QEOc1EFfayHFMqMs3xqAgAANj4CAAX1kAIAC4D6AgAAvRkCAADBDgIAC8rjggAANrJA= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:44:19 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772585FAC4A55@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1511870281-15282-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <1511870281-15282-3-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <20171130123611.GA20914@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20171130132443.4htutb5gpktcshgh@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> <20171201120946.GA23598@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772585FAC3E77@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772585FAC4A12@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772585FAC4A12@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiOTMyNzRhNjItOGNlNi00NTNlLWI3MzEtNDdhMDQ3ZDJiZWMxIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6Im1SZ3B1STM5VnhoNXFcL3I5dTB1c2t6Rk1iK1BPbVwvSXlBOFVJNzFndlpRQT0ifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.0.116 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership 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: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:44:24 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 11:12 AM > To: Matan Azrad ; Neil Horman = ; Ga=EBtan Rivet > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Wu, Jingjing ; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership >=20 > Hi Matan, >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matan Azrad [mailto:matan@mellanox.com] > > Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 1:47 PM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Neil Horman ; Ga=EBtan Rivet > > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Wu, Jingjing ; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership > > > > Hi Konstantine > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin [mailto:konstantin.ananyev@intel.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 1:10 PM > > > To: Matan Azrad ; Neil Horman > > > ; Ga=EBtan Rivet > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Wu, Jingjing > > > ; dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matan, > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Matan Azrad > > > > Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 8:05 AM > > > > To: Neil Horman ; Ga=EBtan Rivet > > > > > > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Wu, Jingjing > > > > ; dev@dpdk.org > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 2:10 PM > > > > > To: Ga=EBtan Rivet > > > > > Cc: Matan Azrad ; Thomas Monjalon > > > > > ; Jingjing Wu ; > > > > > dev@dpdk.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:24:43PM +0100, Ga=EBtan Rivet wrote: > > > > > > Hello Matan, Neil, > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the port ownership concept. I think it is needed to clar= ify > > > > > > some operations and should be useful to several subsystems. > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch could certainly be sub-divided however, and your > > > > > > current > > > > > > 1/5 should probably come after this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some comments inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 07:36:11AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:57:58AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > > > > > > > > The ownership of a port is implicit in DPDK. > > > > > > > > Making it explicit is better from the next reasons: > > > > > > > > 1. It may be convenient for multi-process applications to k= now > > > which > > > > > > > > process is in charge of a port. > > > > > > > > 2. A library could work on top of a port. > > > > > > > > 3. A port can work on top of another port. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also in the fail-safe case, an issue has been met in testpm= d. > > > > > > > > We need to check that the user is not trying to use a port > > > > > > > > which is already managed by fail-safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add ownership mechanism to DPDK Ethernet devices to avoid > > > > > > > > multiple management of a device by different DPDK entities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A port owner is built from owner id(number) and owner > > > > > > > > name(string) while the owner id must be unique to distingui= sh > > > > > > > > between two identical entity instances and the owner name c= an be > > > any name. > > > > > > > > The name helps to logically recognize the owner by differen= t > > > > > > > > DPDK entities and allows easy debug. > > > > > > > > Each DPDK entity can allocate an owner unique identifier an= d > > > > > > > > can use it and its preferred name to owns valid ethdev port= s. > > > > > > > > Each DPDK entity can get any port owner status to decide if= it > > > > > > > > can manage the port or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current ethdev internal port management is not affected= by > > > > > > > > this feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The internal port management is not affected, but the external > > > > > > interface is, however. In order to respect port ownership, > > > > > > applications are forced to modify their port iterator, as shown= by > > > > > > your > > > > > testpmd patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be better to modify the current > > > > > > RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV to call RTE_FOREACH_DEV_OWNED_BY, and > > > > > > introduce a default owner that would represent the application > > > > > > itself (probably with the ID 0 and an owner string ""). Only wi= th > > > > > > specific additional configuration should this default subset of= ethdev be > > > divided. > > > > > > > > > > > > This would make this evolution seamless for applications, at no > > > > > > cost to the complexity of the design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems fairly racy. What if one thread attempts to set > > > > > > > ownership on a port, while another is checking it on another = cpu > > > > > > > in parallel. It doesn't seem like it will protect against th= at at all. > > > > > > > It also doesn't protect against the possibility of multiple > > > > > > > threads attempting to poll for rx in parallel, which I think = was > > > > > > > part of Thomas's origional statement regarding port ownership > > > > > > > (he noted that the lockless design implied only a single thre= ad > > > > > > > should be allowed to poll > > > > > for receive or make configuration changes at a time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this race already there for any configuration operation / > > > > > > polling function? The DPDK arch is expecting applications to so= lve it. > > > > > > Why should port ownership be designed differently from other DP= DK > > > > > components? > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but that doesn't mean it should exist in purpituity, nor doe= s > > > > > it mean that your new api should contain it as well. > > > > > > > > > > > Embedding checks for port ownership within operations will forc= e > > > > > > everyone to bear their costs, even those not interested in usin= g > > > > > > this API. These checks should be kept outside, within the entit= y > > > > > > claiming ownership of the port, in the form of using the proper > > > > > > port iterator IMO. > > > > > > > > > > > No. At the very least, you need to make the API itself exclusive= . > > > > > That is to say, you should at least ensure that a port ownership = get > > > > > call doesn't race with a port ownership set call. It seems > > > > > rediculous to just leave that sort of locking as an exercize to t= he user. > > > > > > > > > > Neil > > > > > > > > > Neil, > > > > As Thomas mentioned, a DPDK port is designed to be managed by only = one > > > > thread (or synchronized DPDK entity). > > > > So all the port management includes port ownership shouldn't be > > > > synchronized, i.e. locks are not needed. > > > > If some application want to do dual thread port management, the > > > > responsibility to synchronize the port ownership or any other port > > > > management is on this application. > > > > Port ownership doesn't come to allow synchronized management of the > > > > port by two DPDK entities in parallel, it is just nice way to answe= r next > > > questions: > > > > 1. Is the port already owned by some DPDK entity(in early control > > > path)? > > > > 2. If yes, Who is the owner? > > > > If the answer to the first question is no, the current entity can t= ake > > > > the ownership without any lock(1 thread). > > > > If the answer to the first question is yes, you can recognize the > > > > owner and take decisions accordingly, sometimes you can decide to u= se > > > > the port because you logically know what the current owner does and > > > > you can be logically synchronized with it, sometimes you can just > > > > leave this port because you have not any deal with this owner. > > > > > > If the goal is just to have an ability to recognize is that device is= managed by > > > another device (failsafe, bonding, etc.), then I think all we need i= s a pointer > > > to rte_eth_dev_data of the owner (NULL would mean no owner). > > > > I think string is better than a pointer from the next reasons: > > 1. It is more human friendly than pointers for debug and printing. >=20 > We can have a function that would take an owner pointer and produce nice > pretty formatted text explanation: "owned by fail-safe device at port X" = or so. >=20 > > 2. it is flexible and allows to forward logical owner message to other = DPDK entities. >=20 > Hmm and why do you want to do that? > There are dozen well defined IPC mechanisms in POSIX world, why do we nee= d to create > a new one? > Especially considering how limited and error prone then new one is. >=20 > > > > > Also I think if we'd like to introduce that mechanism, then it needs = to be > > > - mandatory (control API just don't allow changes to the device confi= guration > > > if caller is not an owner). > > > > But what if 2 DPDK entities should manage the same port \ using it and = they are synchronized? >=20 > You mean 2 DPDK processes (primary/secondary) right? > As you mentioned below - ownership could be set only by primary. > So from the perspective of synchronizing access to the device between mul= tiple processes - > it seems useless anyway. > What I am talking about is about synchronizing access to the low level de= vice from > different high-level entities. > Let say if we have 2 failsafe devices (or 2 bonded devices) - > that mechanism will help to ensure that only one of them can own the devi= ce. > Again if user by mistake will try to manage device that is owned by fails= afe device - > he wouldn't be able to do that. >=20 > > > > > - transparent to the user (no API changes). > > > > For now, there is not API change but new suggested API to use for port = iteration. >=20 > Sorry, I probably wasn't clear here. > What I meant - this api to set/get ownership should be sort of internal t= o ethdev layer. > Let say it would be used for failsafe/bonding (any other compound) device= that needs > to own/manage several low-level devices. > So in normal situation user wouldn't need to use that API directly at all= . >=20 > > > > > - set/get owner ops need to be atomic if we want this mechanism to b= e > > > usable for MP. > > > > But also without atomic this mechanism is usable in MP. > > For example: > > PRIMARY application can set its owner with string "primary A". > > SECONDARY process (which attach to the ports only after the primary cre= ated them )is not allowed to set owner(As you can see in the > code) > > but it can read the owner string and see that the port owner is the pri= mary application. > > The "A" can just sign specific port type to the SECONDARY that this por= t works with logic A which means, for example, primary should > send > > the packets and secondary should receive the packets. >=20 > Even if secondary process is not allowed to modify that string, it might = decide to read it at the moment > when primary one will decide to change it again (clear/set owner). > In that situation secondary will end-up either reading a junk or just cra= sh. > But anyway as I said above - I don't think it is a good idea to have a st= rings here and > use them as IPC mechanism. Just forgot to mention - I don' think it is good idea to disallow secondary= process to set theowner. Let say in secondary process I have few tap/ring/pcap devices. Why it shouldn't be allowed to unite them under bonding device and make tha= t device to own them? That's why I think get/set owner better to be atomic. If the owner is just a pointer - in that case get operation will be atomic = by nature, set could be implemented just by CAS. Konstantin=20 >=20 > Konstantin >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst | 12 +++- > > > > > > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 121 > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 86 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_version.map | 12 ++++ > > > > > > > > 4 files changed, 230 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst > > > > > > > > b/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst > > > > > > > > index 6a0c9f9..af639a1 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst > > > > > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst > > > > > > > > @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ concurrently on the same tx queue witho= ut > > > > > > > > SW lock. This PMD feature found in som > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See `Hardware Offload`_ for ``DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MT_LOCKFREE`` > > > > > capability probing details. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Device Identification and Configuration > > > > > > > > +Device Identification, Ownership and Configuration > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Device Identification > > > > > > > > @@ -171,6 +171,16 @@ Based on their PCI identifier, NIC por= ts > > > > > > > > are > > > > > assigned two other identifiers: > > > > > > > > * A port name used to designate the port in console mess= ages, for > > > > > administration or debugging purposes. > > > > > > > > For ease of use, the port name includes the port index= . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +Port Ownership > > > > > > > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > +The Ethernet devices ports can be owned by a single DPDK > > > > > > > > +entity > > > > > (application, library, PMD, process, etc). > > > > > > > > +The ownership mechanism is controlled by ethdev APIs and > > > > > > > > +allows to > > > > > set/remove/get a port owner by DPDK entities. > > > > > > > > +Allowing this should prevent any multiple management of > > > > > > > > +Ethernet > > > > > port by different entities. > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +.. note:: > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + It is the DPDK entity responsibility either to check t= he > > > > > > > > + port owner > > > > > before using it or to set the port owner to prevent others from u= sing it. > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > Device Configuration > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > > > > > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 2d754d9..836991e 1006= 44 > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > > > > > > @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ > > > > > > > > static const char *MZ_RTE_ETH_DEV_DATA =3D "rte_eth_dev_da= ta"; > > > > > > > > struct rte_eth_dev rte_eth_devices[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS]; > > > > > > > > static struct rte_eth_dev_data *rte_eth_dev_data; > > > > > > > > +static uint16_t rte_eth_next_owner_id =3D > > > RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER > > > > > + 1; > > > > > > > > static uint8_t eth_dev_last_created_port; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* spinlock for eth device callbacks */ @@ -278,6 +279,7 @= @ > > > > > > > > struct rte_eth_dev * > > > > > > > > if (eth_dev =3D=3D NULL) > > > > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + memset(ð_dev->data->owner, 0, sizeof(struct > > > > > > > > +rte_eth_dev_owner)); > > > > > > > > eth_dev->state =3D RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED; > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -293,6 +295,125 @@ struct rte_eth_dev * > > > > > > > > return 1; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static int > > > > > > > > +rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(uint16_t owner_id) { > > > > > > > > + if (owner_id =3D=3D RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER || > > > > > > > > + (rte_eth_next_owner_id !=3D RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER > > > && > > > > > > > > + rte_eth_next_owner_id <=3D owner_id)) { > > > > > > > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Invalid owner_id=3D%d.\n", > > > owner_id); > > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +uint16_t > > > > > > > > +rte_eth_find_next_owned_by(uint16_t port_id, const uint16_= t > > > > > > > > +owner_id) { > > > > > > > > + while (port_id < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS && > > > > > > > > + (rte_eth_devices[port_id].state !=3D > > > RTE_ETH_DEV_ATTACHED || > > > > > > > > + rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->owner.id !=3D owner= _id)) > > > > > > > > + port_id++; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + if (port_id >=3D RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS) > > > > > > > > + return RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + return port_id; > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +int > > > > > > > > +rte_eth_dev_owner_new(uint16_t *owner_id) { > > > > > > > > + if (rte_eal_process_type() !=3D RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) { > > > > > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Not primary process > > > cannot own > > > > > ports.\n"); > > > > > > > > + return -EPERM; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + if (rte_eth_next_owner_id =3D=3D RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER) { > > > > > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Reached maximum > > > number of > > > > > Ethernet port owners.\n"); > > > > > > > > + return -EUSERS; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + *owner_id =3D rte_eth_next_owner_id++; > > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +int > > > > > > > > +rte_eth_dev_owner_set(const uint16_t port_id, > > > > > > > > + const struct rte_eth_dev_owner *owner) { > > > > > > > > + struct rte_eth_dev_owner *port_owner; > > > > > > > > + int ret; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV); > > > > > > > > + if (rte_eal_process_type() !=3D RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) { > > > > > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Not primary process > > > cannot own > > > > > ports.\n"); > > > > > > > > + return -EPERM; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + if (!rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(owner->id)) > > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > + port_owner =3D &rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->owner; > > > > > > > > + if (port_owner->id !=3D RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER && > > > > > > > > + port_owner->id !=3D owner->id) { > > > > > > > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, > > > > > > > > + "Cannot set owner to port %d already owned > > > by > > > > > %s_%05d.\n", > > > > > > > > + port_id, port_owner->name, port_owner- > > > >id); > > > > > > > > + return -EPERM; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + ret =3D snprintf(port_owner->name, > > > > > RTE_ETH_MAX_OWNER_NAME_LEN, "%s", > > > > > > > > + owner->name); > > > > > > > > + if (ret < 0 || ret >=3D RTE_ETH_MAX_OWNER_NAME_LEN) { > > > > > > > > + memset(port_owner->name, 0, > > > > > RTE_ETH_MAX_OWNER_NAME_LEN); > > > > > > > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Invalid owner name.\n"); > > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + port_owner->id =3D owner->id; > > > > > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Port %d owner is %s_%05d.\n", > > > port_id, > > > > > > > > + owner->name, owner->id); > > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +int > > > > > > > > +rte_eth_dev_owner_remove(const uint16_t port_id, const > > > > > > > > +uint16_t > > > > > > > > +owner_id) { > > > > > > > > + struct rte_eth_dev_owner *port_owner; > > > > > > > > + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV); > > > > > > > > + if (!rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(owner_id)) > > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > + port_owner =3D &rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->owner; > > > > > > > > + if (port_owner->id !=3D owner_id) { > > > > > > > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, > > > > > > > > + "Cannot remove port %d owner %s_%05d by > > > > > different owner id %5d.\n", > > > > > > > > + port_id, port_owner->name, port_owner- > > > >id, > > > > > owner_id); > > > > > > > > + return -EPERM; > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Port %d owner %s_%05d has > > > > > removed.\n", port_id, > > > > > > > > + port_owner->name, port_owner->id); > > > > > > > > + memset(port_owner, 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_owner)); > > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +void > > > > > > > > +rte_eth_dev_owner_delete(const uint16_t owner_id) { > > > > > > > > + uint16_t p; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + if (!rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(owner_id)) > > > > > > > > + return; > > > > > > > > + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_OWNED_BY(p, owner_id) > > > > > > > > + memset(&rte_eth_devices[p].data->owner, 0, > > > > > > > > + sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_owner)); > > > > > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("All port owners owned by " > > > > > > > > + "%05d identifier has removed.\n", > > > owner_id); } > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +const struct rte_eth_dev_owner * rte_eth_dev_owner_get(con= st > > > > > > > > +uint16_t port_id) { > > > > > > > > + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, NULL); > > > > > > > > + if (rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->owner.id =3D=3D > > > > > RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER) > > > > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > > > > + return &rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->owner; > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > int > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_socket_id(uint16_t port_id) { diff --git > > > > > > > > a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h > > > > > > > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h index 341c2d6..f54c26d 1006= 44 > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h > > > > > > > > @@ -1760,6 +1760,15 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_sriov { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN RTE_DEV_NAME_MAX_LEN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +#define RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER 0 > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +#define RTE_ETH_MAX_OWNER_NAME_LEN 64 > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +struct rte_eth_dev_owner { > > > > > > > > + uint16_t id; /**< The owner unique identifier. */ > > > > > > > > + char name[RTE_ETH_MAX_OWNER_NAME_LEN]; /**< The > > > owner > > > > > name. */ > > > > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > > * @internal > > > > > > > > * The data part, with no function pointers, associated wi= th > > > > > > > > each > > > > > ethernet device. > > > > > > > > @@ -1810,6 +1819,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_data { > > > > > > > > int numa_node; /**< NUMA node connection */ > > > > > > > > struct rte_vlan_filter_conf vlan_filter_conf; > > > > > > > > /**< VLAN filter configuration. */ > > > > > > > > + struct rte_eth_dev_owner owner; /**< The port owner. */ > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** Device supports link state interrupt */ @@ -1846,6 > > > > > > > > +1856,82 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_data { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > > + * Iterates over valid ethdev ports owned by a specific ow= ner. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * @param port_id > > > > > > > > + * The id of the next possible valid owned port. > > > > > > > > + * @param owner_id > > > > > > > > + * The owner identifier. > > > > > > > > + * RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER means iterate over all valid > > > > > > > > + ownerless > > > > > ports. > > > > > > > > + * @return > > > > > > > > + * Next valid port id owned by owner_id, RTE_MAX_ETHPORT= S if > > > > > there is none. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +uint16_t rte_eth_find_next_owned_by(uint16_t port_id, cons= t > > > > > > > > +uint16_t owner_id); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > + * Macro to iterate over all enabled ethdev ports owned by= a > > > > > > > > +specific > > > > > owner. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +#define RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_OWNED_BY(p, o) \ > > > > > > > > + for (p =3D rte_eth_find_next_owned_by(0, o); \ > > > > > > > > + (unsigned int)p < (unsigned int)RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; \ > > > > > > > > + p =3D rte_eth_find_next_owned_by(p + 1, o)) > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > + * Get a new unique owner identifier. > > > > > > > > + * An owner identifier is used to owns Ethernet devices by > > > > > > > > +only one DPDK entity > > > > > > > > + * to avoid multiple management of device by different ent= ities. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * @param owner_id > > > > > > > > + * Owner identifier pointer. > > > > > > > > + * @return > > > > > > > > + * Negative errno value on error, 0 on success. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +int rte_eth_dev_owner_new(uint16_t *owner_id); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > + * Set an Ethernet device owner. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * @param port_id > > > > > > > > + * The identifier of the port to own. > > > > > > > > + * @param owner > > > > > > > > + * The owner pointer. > > > > > > > > + * @return > > > > > > > > + * Negative errno value on error, 0 on success. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +int rte_eth_dev_owner_set(const uint16_t port_id, > > > > > > > > + const struct rte_eth_dev_owner *owner); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > + * Remove Ethernet device owner to make the device ownerle= ss. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * @param port_id > > > > > > > > + * The identifier of port to make ownerless. > > > > > > > > + * @param owner > > > > > > > > + * The owner identifier. > > > > > > > > + * @return > > > > > > > > + * 0 on success, negative errno value on error. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +int rte_eth_dev_owner_remove(const uint16_t port_id, const > > > > > > > > +uint16_t owner_id); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > + * Remove owner from all Ethernet devices owned by a speci= fic > > > > > owner. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * @param owner > > > > > > > > + * The owner identifier. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +void rte_eth_dev_owner_delete(const uint16_t owner_id); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > + * Get the owner of an Ethernet device. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * @param port_id > > > > > > > > + * The port identifier. > > > > > > > > + * @return > > > > > > > > + * NULL when the device is ownerless, else the device own= er > > > pointer. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +const struct rte_eth_dev_owner *rte_eth_dev_owner_get(cons= t > > > > > > > > +uint16_t port_id); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > > > * Get the total number of Ethernet devices that have been > > > > > successfully > > > > > > > > * initialized by the matching Ethernet driver during the = PCI > > > > > > > > probing > > > > > phase > > > > > > > > * and that are available for applications to use. These > > > > > > > > devices must be diff --git > > > > > > > > a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_version.map > > > > > > > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_version.map > > > > > > > > index e9681ac..7d07edb 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_version.map > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_version.map > > > > > > > > @@ -198,6 +198,18 @@ DPDK_17.11 { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } DPDK_17.08; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +DPDK_18.02 { > > > > > > > > + global: > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + rte_eth_find_next_owned_by; > > > > > > > > + rte_eth_dev_owner_new; > > > > > > > > + rte_eth_dev_owner_set; > > > > > > > > + rte_eth_dev_owner_remove; > > > > > > > > + rte_eth_dev_owner_delete; > > > > > > > > + rte_eth_dev_owner_get; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +} DPDK_17.11; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > EXPERIMENTAL { > > > > > > > > global: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 1.8.3.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Ga=EBtan Rivet > > > > > > 6WIND > > > > > >