Re: [dpdk-dev] How to replace rte_eth_dev_attach with rte_eal_hotplug_add

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

Hi,

I am actively working on it.
Look how rte_eth_dev_attach is replaced in testpmd:
	https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/47019/
It is using a new ethdev iterator RTE_ETH_FOREACH_MATCHING_DEV.


22/10/2018 06:34, Hideyuki Yamashita:
> Dear Thomas and all,
> 
> About a month ago, I posted the topic related with 
> how to replace rte_eth_dev_attach.
> 
> Following your advice,
> my code would be as below:
> (Old code using deprecated API is commented out)
> 
> rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name is used to retrieve dpdk port
> after rte_eal_hotplug_add.
> Note that my application is just one of the dpdk applications(in the host)
> and within the process, only one thread handles device attatch/detach.
> (No race condition with regard to device hot_plug will
> not take place)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>         //ret = rte_eth_dev_attach(devargs, &vhost_port_id);
>         //if (ret < 0)
>         //      return ret;
> 
>         struct rte_devargs da;
> 
>         memset(&da, 0, sizeof(da));
> 
>         /* parse devargs */
>         if (rte_devargs_parse(&da, devargs))
>                 return -1;
>         ret = rte_eal_hotplug_add(da.bus->name, da.name, da.args);
>         if (ret < 0) {
>                 free(da.args);
>                 return ret;
>         }
>         free(da.args);
>         ret = rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name(da.name, &vhost_port_id);
>         if (ret < 0)
>                 return ret;
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> If you have any concerns/additional advices, please let me know.
> 
> BR,
> Hideyuki Yamashita
> NTT TechnoCross
> 
> 
> > 27/09/2018 12:40, Hideyuki Yamashita:
> > > Dear Thomas,
> > > 
> > > Thansk for your answer.
> > > Please see inline.
> > > 
> > > > 27/09/2018 03:38, Hideyuki Yamashita:
> > > > > Dear Thomas,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for your answer.
> > > > > It took me a little time to digest answer.
> > > > > Please see inline.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 21/09/2018 09:19, Hideyuki Yamashita:
> > > > > > > Dear Gaetan and Thomas, 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks for your answer.
> > > > > > > Please see inline.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 20/09/2018 11:09, Ga?an Rivet:
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 05:46:37PM +0900, Hideyuki Yamashita wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > From dpdk 18.08 release rte_eth_dev_attach and 
> > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_detach becom deprecated API and 
> > > > > > > > > > it is recommended to replace with rte_eal_hotplug_add
> > > > > > > > > > and rte_eal_hotplug_remove.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > My program uses  above mentioned deprecated APIs
> > > > > > > > > > and have to replace those.
> > > > > > > > > > Note that my program uses attach to attach vhost, pcap pmd.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > My question is whether it is correct to replace those as following:
> > > > > > > > > > find rte_eth_dev_attach function in rte_ethdev.c and
> > > > > > > > > > migrate those content into my program.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > e.g. 
> > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c line 643-686 for attach
> > > > > > > > > > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c line 690-720 for detach
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Your advice/guidance are much appreciated.
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hello Hideyuki,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > You could use this code for guidance, while leaving the ethdev
> > > > > > > > > specificities such as verifying the eth_dev_count_total(). The hotplug
> > > > > > > > > function would already return an error if the PMD was not able to create
> > > > > > > > > the necessary devices.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The main issue might be to find the port_id of your new port.
> > > > > > > > > You won't be able to use eth_dev_last_created_port, so you would have to
> > > > > > > > > iterate over the ethdev using RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV and find the one
> > > > > > > > > matching your parameters (you might for example match the rte_device
> > > > > > > > > name with the name you used in hotplug_add, as there is no standard
> > > > > > > > > naming scheme at the ethdev level).
> > > > > > > First of all, thank for your answering to my question.
> > > > > > > But I have questions.
> > > > > > > (Sorry, I have poor knowledge about dpdk and have many basic questions)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Q1. 
> > > > > > > Why eth_dev_last_created_port can not be used?
> > > > > > > When I look into rte_eth_dev_atthach in 18.08, it calls 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > *port_id = eth_dev_last_created_port;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > at the end of the function.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You can have a race condition.
> > > > > Please elaborate me a bit more.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is it correct understanding that race condition 
> > > > > includes
> > > > > - read information before port is available
> > > > > - other device may be plugged (or unplugged)
> > > > > and so using "eth_dev_last_created_port" is 
> > > > > NOT reliable?
> > > > 
> > > > I am thinking about the second one only.
> > > 
> > > If we assume there is only one DPDK application 
> > > inside the host and within the application, only one thread
> > > handles attach/detach of devices, then is it ok to use 
> > > > > > > *port_id = eth_dev_last_created_port;
> > > because there seems no possiblity race condition
> > > takes place?
> > 
> > If you are never probing a new port outside of this thread,
> > I guess it's OK.
> > Take care of not attaching from the interrupt thread too!
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>