From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0791B1DD for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:18:54 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jan 2018 13:18:53 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,403,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="25788830" Received: from irsmsx153.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.75]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2018 13:18:52 -0800 Received: from irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.3) by IRSMSX153.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:18:51 +0000 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.236]) by irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.14.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:18:51 +0000 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: Matan Azrad , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan_Rivet?= , "Wu, Jingjing" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Neil Horman , "Richardson, Bruce" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Thread-Index: AQHTlHB0mIDt6Y+2sU2Ne78ePy1VDqOB9FHw Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:18:51 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588628298E@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1515318351-4756-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258862826E0@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588628270E@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <3663694.426ICJToDY@xps> In-Reply-To: <3663694.426ICJToDY@xps> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMWM2Y2I1ZjItNzlhZC00YTA2LThjMTctMjU4ZTQzZDAwMWRhIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IjRIVEFWV0Y5ejhMbzcrZkhiaFlNYjNVbGt1aDZ0cFd4XC90R216Z0NLalh3PSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.0.116 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev 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, 23 Jan 2018 21:18:55 -0000 >=20 > 23/01/2018 16:18, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstanti= n > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > > > 23/01/2018 14:34, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > If that' s the use case, then I think you need to set device owne= rship at creation time - > > > > > inside dev_allocate(). > > > > > Again that would avoid such racing conditions inside testpmd. > > > > > > > > The devices must be allocated at a low level layer. > > > > > > No one arguing about that. > > > But we can provide owner id information to the low level. >=20 > Sorry, you did not get it. Might be. > We cannot provide owner id at the low level > because it is not yet decided who will be the owner > before the port is allocated. Why is that? What prevents us decide who will manage that device *before* allocating por= t of it? IMO we do have all needed information at that stage. >=20 > > > > When a new device appears (hotplug), an ethdev port should be alloc= ated > > > > automatically if it passes the whitelist/blacklist policy test. > > > > Then we must decide who will manage this device. > > > > I suggest notifying the DPDK libs first. > > > > So a DPDK lib or PMD like failsafe can have the priority to take th= e > > > > ownership in its notification callback. > > > > > > Possible, but seems a bit overcomplicated. > > > Why not just: > > > > > > Have a global variable process_default_owner_id, that would be init o= nce at startup. > > > Have an LTS variable default_owner_id. > > > It will be used by rte_eth_dev_allocate() caller can set dev->owner_i= d at creation time, > > > so port allocation and setting ownership - will be an atomic operatio= n. > > > At the exit rte_eth_dev_allocate() will always reset default_owner_id= =3D0: > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocate(...) > > > { > > > lock(owner_lock); > > > > > > owner =3D RTE_PER_LCORE(default_owner_id); > > > if (owner =3D=3D 0) > > > owner =3D process_default_owner_id; > > > set_owner(port, ..., owner); > > > unlock(owner_lock); > > > RTE_PER_LCORE(default_owner_id) =3D 0; > > > > Or probably better to leave default_owner_id reset to the caller. > > Another thing - we can use same LTS variable in all control ops to > > allow/disallow changing of port configuration based on ownership. > > Konstantin > > > > > } > > > > > > So callers who don't need any special ownership - don't need to do an= ything. > > > Special callers (like failsafe) can set default_owenr_id just before = calling hotplug > > > handling routine. >=20 > No, hotplug will not be a routine. > I am talking about real hotplug, like a device which appears in the VM. > This new device must be handled by EAL and probed automatically if > comply with whitelist/blacklist policy given by the application or user. > Real hotplug is asynchronous. By 'asynchronous' here you mean it would be handled in the EAL interrupt th= read or something different? Anyway, I suppose you do need a function inside DPDK that will do the actu= al work in response on hotplug event, right? That's what I refer to as 'hotplug routine' above.=20 > We will just receive notifications that it appeared. >=20 > Note: there is some temporary code in failsafe to manage some hotplug. > This code must be removed when it will be properly handled in EAL. Ok, if it is just a temporary code, that would be removed soon - then it definitely seems wrong to modify tespmd (or any other user app) to comply with that temporary solution. Konstantin