From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Elad Nachman <eladv6@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Christian <erclists@gmail.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov@nfware.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] kni: Fix request overwritten
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 15:03:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3ae193df-292c-4907-df4a-88ce3d6735fc@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACXF7qkpzZiSbtDf8YFU_vVNLc6ytmjXh4yUe+xHhYUnOdzyRQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/4/2021 2:09 PM, Elad Nachman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> EAGAIN is propogated back to the kernel and to the caller.
>
So will the user get an error, or it will be handled by the kernel and retried?
> We cannot retry from the kni kernel module since we hold the rtnl lock.
>
Why not? We are already waiting until a command time out, like 'kni_net_open()'
can retry if 'kni_net_process_request()' returns '-EAGAIN'. And we can limit the
number of retry for safety.
> FYI,
>
> Elad
>
> בתאריך יום ב׳, 4 באוק׳ 2021, 16:05, מאת Ferruh Yigit <
> ferruh.yigit@intel.com>:
>
>> On 9/24/2021 11:54 AM, Elad Nachman wrote:
>>> Fix lack of multiple KNI requests handling support by introducing a
>>> request in progress flag which will fail additional requests with
>>> EAGAIN return code if the original request has not been processed
>>> by user-space.
>>>
>>> Bugzilla ID: 809
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Can you please test this patch, if it solves the issue you reported?
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Elad Nachman <eladv6@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/linux/kni/kni_net.c | 9 +++++++++
>>> lib/kni/rte_kni.c | 2 ++
>>> lib/kni/rte_kni_common.h | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> @@ -123,7 +124,15 @@ kni_net_process_request(struct net_device *dev,
>> struct rte_kni_request *req)
>>>
>>> mutex_lock(&kni->sync_lock);
>>>
>>> + /* Check that existing request has been processed: */
>>> + cur_req = (struct rte_kni_request *)kni->sync_kva;
>>> + if (cur_req->req_in_progress) {
>>> + ret = -EAGAIN;
>>
>> Overall logic in the KNI looks good to me, this helps to serialize the
>> requests
>> even for async ones.
>>
>> But can you please clarify how it behaves in the kernel side with '-EAGAIN'
>> return type? Will linux call the ndo again, or will it just fail.
>>
>> If it just fails should we handle the re-try on '-EAGAIN' within the kni
>> module?
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-04 14:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-24 10:54 Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 13:01 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-04 13:09 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 14:03 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2021-10-04 14:25 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 14:51 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-04 14:58 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 15:48 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-04 16:18 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 16:59 ` Eric Christian
2021-10-04 18:27 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-08 20:23 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-08 21:11 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-04 14:14 ` Eric Christian
2021-10-04 14:56 ` 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=3ae193df-292c-4907-df4a-88ce3d6735fc@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=eladv6@gmail.com \
--cc=erclists@gmail.com \
--cc=iryzhov@nfware.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).