From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187DBA0C41; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 08:28:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98907410EA; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 08:28:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271AD410E5 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 08:28:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dggemv703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HKjvn4SK0zWYsX; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:27:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggema767-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.209) by dggemv703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:28:37 +0800 Received: from [10.66.74.184] (10.66.74.184) by dggema767-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.8; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:28:37 +0800 From: Huisong Li To: Thomas Monjalon CC: , , References: <20210907034108.58763-1-lihuisong@huawei.com> <2004569.RrOHqjGOaX@thomas> <430246ab-36ce-402f-8570-d305ada9d720@huawei.com> <4188639.QZEZhMFxuf@thomas> Message-ID: <6934941a-23e0-5466-3013-69a79c42fec0@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:28:33 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.66.74.184] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To dggema767-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.209) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC V1] examples/l3fwd-power: fix memory leak for rte_pci_device X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi. Thomas I've summed up our previous discussion. Can you look at the final proposal again? Do you think we should deal with the problem better? 在 2021/9/27 9:44, Huisong Li 写道: > > 在 2021/9/27 3:16, Thomas Monjalon 写道: >> 26/09/2021 14:20, Huisong Li: >>> 在 2021/9/18 16:46, Thomas Monjalon 写道: >>>> 18/09/2021 05:24, Huisong Li: >>>>> 在 2021/9/17 20:50, Thomas Monjalon 写道: >>>>>> 17/09/2021 04:13, Huisong Li: >>>>>>> How should PMD free it? What should we do? Any good suggestions? >>>>>> Check that there is no other port sharing the same PCI device, >>>>>> then call the PMD callback for rte_pci_remove_t. >>>>> For primary and secondary processes, their rte_pci_device is >>>>> independent. >>>> Yes it requires to free on both primary and secondary. >>>> >>>>> Is this for a scenario where there are multiple representor ports >>>>> under >>>>> the same PCI address in the same processe? >>>> A PCI device can have multiple physical or representor ports. >>> Got it. >>>>>>> Would it be more appropriate to do this in rte_eal_cleanup() if it >>>>>>> cann't be done in the API above? >>>>>> rte_eal_cleanup is a last cleanup for what was not done earlier. >>>>>> We could do that but first we should properly free devices when >>>>>> closed. >>>>>> >>>>> Totally, it is appropriate that rte_eal_cleanup is responsible for >>>>> releasing devices under the pci bus. >>>> Yes, but if a device is closed while the rest of the app keep running, >>>> we should not wait to free it. >>>   From this point of view, it seems to make sense. However, >>> according to >>> the OVS-DPDK >>> >>> usage, it calls dev_close() first, and then check whether all ports >>> under the PCI address are >>> >>> closed to free rte_pci_device by calling rte_dev_remove(). >>> >>> >>> If we do not want the user to be aware of this, and we want >>> rte_pci_device to be freed >>> >>> in a timely manner. Can we add a code logic calculating the number of >>> ports under a PCI address >>> >>> and calling rte_dev_remove() to rte_eth_dev_close() to free >>> rte_pci_device and delete it from rte_pci_bus? >>> >>> If we do, we may need to make some extra work, otherwise some >>> applications, such as OVS-DPDK, will >>> >>> fail due to a second call to rte_dev_remove(). >> I don't understand the proposal. >> Please could explain again the code path? > > 1. This RFC patch intended to free rte_pci_device in DPDK app by calling > > rte_dev_remove() after calling dev_close(). > > 2. For the above-mentioned usage in OVS-DPDK, please see function > > netdev_dpdk_destruct() in lib/netdev-dpdk.c. > > 3. Later, you suggest that the release of rte_pci_device should be done > > in the dev_close() API, not in the rte_eal_init() which is not real-time. > > To sum up, the above proposal comes out. > >> It may deserve a separate mail thread. >> >> >> . > .