From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327A6A0096
for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:47:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D6B1B9B8;
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:47:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850512B8E
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:47:30 +0200 (CEST)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58])
by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
05 Jun 2019 02:47:29 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.94])
([10.237.220.94])
by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2019 02:47:28 -0700
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, rsanford@akamai.com, david.marchand@redhat.com
References: <1556924082-22535-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
<1557354906-2500-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
<3809be84-8fa7-b91d-d781-f62e0506f293@intel.com> <4234840.t272voWUu0@xps>
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Message-ID: <6fa30d88-c266-5864-8aee-171a2e61d37e@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 10:47:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4234840.t272voWUu0@xps>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] timer: fix resource leak in finalize
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
On 05-Jun-19 10:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 09/05/2019 10:29, Burakov, Anatoly:
>> On 08-May-19 11:35 PM, Erik Gabriel Carrillo wrote:
>>> By using a lock added to the rte_mem_config (which lives in shared
>>> memory), we can synchronize multiple processes in init/finalize and
>>> safely free allocations made during init.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> changes in v3:
>>> - The previous version had race condition. This version fixes the race
>>> by adding a lock in shared memory outside of the DPDK heap area
>>> that can be used to safely free the memzone reserved in the subsystem
>>> init call. (Anatoly)
>>>
>>> This patch depends on http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/53333/.
>>>
>>> changes in v2:
>>> - Handle scenario where primary process exits before secondaries such
>>> that memzone is not freed early (Anatoly)
>>>
>>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h | 3 +++
>>> lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h
>>> index 84aabe3..8cbc09c 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h
>>> @@ -64,6 +64,9 @@ struct rte_mem_config {
>>> rte_rwlock_t memory_hotplug_lock;
>>> /**< indicates whether memory hotplug request is in progress. */
>>>
>>> + rte_spinlock_t timer_subsystem_lock;
>>> + /**< indicates whether timer subsystem init/finalize is in progress. */
>>> +
>>
>> I believe there's an initialize function somewhere which will initialize
>> all of these locks. This lock should be in there as well.
>>
>> Other than that, i'm OK with this change, however i feel like /just/
>> adding this would be a missed opportunity, because next time we want to
>> add something here it will be an ABI break again.
>>
>> We could perhaps use this opportunity to leave some padding for future
>> data. I'm not sure how would that look like, just an idea floating in my
>> head :)
>
> Any update or other opinion?
>
I have a patchset that hides mem config - if we are to add a lock, it
would be after adding that patch, as a bugfix (since by then it would n
longer be an ABI breakage or an API change).
--
Thanks,
Anatoly