From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDA02C38
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:09:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2017 05:09:26 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,274,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="1086267165"
Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.38])
([10.237.220.38])
by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2017 05:09:25 -0800
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
References: <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>
<20170123115610.GG10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10A80C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
<20170123125256.GH10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
<2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10A841@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Thomas Monjalon
<thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, "Horton, Remy" <remy.horton@intel.com>
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Message-ID: <5a383807-dc74-5a17-d09c-1fa6c88d2333@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:09:24 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10A841@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:09:28 -0000
On 1/23/2017 1:06 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com]
>> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:53 PM
>> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
>> Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; Horton, Remy
>> <remy.horton@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix wrong memset
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:44:11PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>> 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).
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>> I think this is possible.
>>
>> Yes, it's possible: find another port id if that one is already taken
>> by primary process (or even by secondary process: think that primary
>> process might attatch a port later).
>>
>>> They just need to be initialized properly,
>>> so each rte_eth_devices[port_id]->data, etc. point to the right place.
>>
>> My understanding is, as far as they use different port_id, it might
>> be fine. Just not sure it's enough or not.
>
> As I understand, the main problem is that rte_eth_devices[] is local,
> while rte_eth_dev_data points to the shared memory array.
> And rte_eth_dev_allocate() assumes that if rte_eth_devices[x] is free,
> then rte_eth_dev_data[port_id] is also free.
> Which is wrong in case when primary/secondary processes have different devices attached.
> Another problem is that inside rte_ethdev.c we manipulate rte_eth_dev_data[]
> contents without grabbing any lock.
> I think it was an attempt to fix that issue in 16.07 timeframe or so,
> but I don't remember what happened with that patch.
Same here, I remember this already discussed and even some patches sent,
by Reshma if I remember correctly, but I don't remember latest status.
> Konstantin
>
>
>
>