* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/5] net/tap: fix mbuf and mem leak during queue release
@ 2020-04-07 4:22 wangyunjian
2020-04-07 12:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: wangyunjian @ 2020-04-07 4:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev; +Cc: keith.wiles, jerry.lilijun, xudingke, Yunjian Wang, stable
From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
For the tap PMD, we should release mbufs and iovecs from the Rx queue
when close or remove device.
Fixes: 0781f5762cfe ("net/tap: support segmented mbufs")
CC: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
---
drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
index 4c4b6b0b2..a9ba0ca68 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
@@ -1022,6 +1022,7 @@ tap_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
int i;
struct pmd_internals *internals = dev->data->dev_private;
struct pmd_process_private *process_private = dev->process_private;
+ struct rx_queue *rxq;
tap_link_set_down(dev);
tap_flow_flush(dev, NULL);
@@ -1029,8 +1030,13 @@ tap_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
for (i = 0; i < RTE_PMD_TAP_MAX_QUEUES; i++) {
if (process_private->rxq_fds[i] != -1) {
+ rxq = &internals->rxq[i];
close(process_private->rxq_fds[i]);
process_private->rxq_fds[i] = -1;
+ rte_pktmbuf_free(rxq->pool);
+ rte_free(rxq->iovecs);
+ rxq->pool = NULL;
+ rxq->iovecs = NULL;
}
if (process_private->txq_fds[i] != -1) {
close(process_private->txq_fds[i]);
@@ -2399,6 +2405,7 @@ rte_pmd_tap_remove(struct rte_vdev_device *dev)
struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev = NULL;
struct pmd_internals *internals;
struct pmd_process_private *process_private;
+ struct rx_queue *rxq;
int i;
/* find the ethdev entry */
@@ -2425,8 +2432,13 @@ rte_pmd_tap_remove(struct rte_vdev_device *dev)
}
for (i = 0; i < RTE_PMD_TAP_MAX_QUEUES; i++) {
if (process_private->rxq_fds[i] != -1) {
+ rxq = &internals->rxq[i];
close(process_private->rxq_fds[i]);
process_private->rxq_fds[i] = -1;
+ rte_pktmbuf_free(rxq->pool);
+ rte_free(rxq->iovecs);
+ rxq->pool = NULL;
+ rxq->iovecs = NULL;
}
if (process_private->txq_fds[i] != -1) {
close(process_private->txq_fds[i]);
--
2.19.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 2/5] net/tap: fix mbuf and mem leak during queue release
2020-04-07 4:22 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/5] net/tap: fix mbuf and mem leak during queue release wangyunjian
@ 2020-04-07 12:55 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-04-08 1:18 ` wangyunjian
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2020-04-07 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wangyunjian, dev; +Cc: keith.wiles, jerry.lilijun, xudingke, stable
On 4/7/2020 5:22 AM, wangyunjian wrote:
> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
>
> For the tap PMD, we should release mbufs and iovecs from the Rx queue
> when close or remove device.
>
> Fixes: 0781f5762cfe ("net/tap: support segmented mbufs")
> CC: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
> index 4c4b6b0b2..a9ba0ca68 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
> @@ -1022,6 +1022,7 @@ tap_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> int i;
> struct pmd_internals *internals = dev->data->dev_private;
> struct pmd_process_private *process_private = dev->process_private;
> + struct rx_queue *rxq;
>
> tap_link_set_down(dev);
> tap_flow_flush(dev, NULL);
> @@ -1029,8 +1030,13 @@ tap_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>
> for (i = 0; i < RTE_PMD_TAP_MAX_QUEUES; i++) {
> if (process_private->rxq_fds[i] != -1) {
> + rxq = &internals->rxq[i];
> close(process_private->rxq_fds[i]);
> process_private->rxq_fds[i] = -1;
> + rte_pktmbuf_free(rxq->pool);
> + rte_free(rxq->iovecs);
> + rxq->pool = NULL;
> + rxq->iovecs = NULL;
> }
> if (process_private->txq_fds[i] != -1) {
> close(process_private->txq_fds[i]);
> @@ -2399,6 +2405,7 @@ rte_pmd_tap_remove(struct rte_vdev_device *dev)
> struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev = NULL;
> struct pmd_internals *internals;
> struct pmd_process_private *process_private;
> + struct rx_queue *rxq;
> int i;
>
> /* find the ethdev entry */
> @@ -2425,8 +2432,13 @@ rte_pmd_tap_remove(struct rte_vdev_device *dev)
> }
> for (i = 0; i < RTE_PMD_TAP_MAX_QUEUES; i++) {
> if (process_private->rxq_fds[i] != -1) {
> + rxq = &internals->rxq[i];
> close(process_private->rxq_fds[i]);
> process_private->rxq_fds[i] = -1;
> + rte_pktmbuf_free(rxq->pool);
> + rte_free(rxq->iovecs);
> + rxq->pool = NULL;
> + rxq->iovecs = NULL;
> }
> if (process_private->txq_fds[i] != -1) {
> close(process_private->txq_fds[i]);
>
Thanks for the fix, but instead of duplicating this for 'close()' & 'remove()',
can 'remove()' call the 'close()'?
They should be doing almost same thing but I can see there is difference between
two, which may mean something is missed, unifying them fixes those missed parts too.
Just a reminder that there can be tree valid path and should work fine:
1- user 'close()' the PMD
2- user directly 'remove()' the PMD
3- user first 'close()', later 'remove()' the PMD
Thanks,
ferruh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 2/5] net/tap: fix mbuf and mem leak during queue release
2020-04-07 12:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
@ 2020-04-08 1:18 ` wangyunjian
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: wangyunjian @ 2020-04-08 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ferruh Yigit, dev; +Cc: keith.wiles, Lilijun (Jerry), xudingke, stable
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 8:55 PM
> To: wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: keith.wiles@intel.com; Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>; xudingke
> <xudingke@huawei.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/5] net/tap: fix mbuf and mem
> leak during queue release
>
> On 4/7/2020 5:22 AM, wangyunjian wrote:
> > From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> >
> > For the tap PMD, we should release mbufs and iovecs from the Rx queue
> > when close or remove device.
> >
> > Fixes: 0781f5762cfe ("net/tap: support segmented mbufs")
> > CC: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
> > b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c index 4c4b6b0b2..a9ba0ca68 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
> > @@ -1022,6 +1022,7 @@ tap_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> > int i;
> > struct pmd_internals *internals = dev->data->dev_private;
> > struct pmd_process_private *process_private = dev->process_private;
> > + struct rx_queue *rxq;
> >
> > tap_link_set_down(dev);
> > tap_flow_flush(dev, NULL);
> > @@ -1029,8 +1030,13 @@ tap_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < RTE_PMD_TAP_MAX_QUEUES; i++) {
> > if (process_private->rxq_fds[i] != -1) {
> > + rxq = &internals->rxq[i];
> > close(process_private->rxq_fds[i]);
> > process_private->rxq_fds[i] = -1;
> > + rte_pktmbuf_free(rxq->pool);
> > + rte_free(rxq->iovecs);
> > + rxq->pool = NULL;
> > + rxq->iovecs = NULL;
> > }
> > if (process_private->txq_fds[i] != -1) {
> > close(process_private->txq_fds[i]);
> > @@ -2399,6 +2405,7 @@ rte_pmd_tap_remove(struct rte_vdev_device
> *dev)
> > struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev = NULL;
> > struct pmd_internals *internals;
> > struct pmd_process_private *process_private;
> > + struct rx_queue *rxq;
> > int i;
> >
> > /* find the ethdev entry */
> > @@ -2425,8 +2432,13 @@ rte_pmd_tap_remove(struct rte_vdev_device
> *dev)
> > }
> > for (i = 0; i < RTE_PMD_TAP_MAX_QUEUES; i++) {
> > if (process_private->rxq_fds[i] != -1) {
> > + rxq = &internals->rxq[i];
> > close(process_private->rxq_fds[i]);
> > process_private->rxq_fds[i] = -1;
> > + rte_pktmbuf_free(rxq->pool);
> > + rte_free(rxq->iovecs);
> > + rxq->pool = NULL;
> > + rxq->iovecs = NULL;
> > }
> > if (process_private->txq_fds[i] != -1) {
> > close(process_private->txq_fds[i]);
> >
>
> Thanks for the fix, but instead of duplicating this for 'close()' & 'remove()', can
> 'remove()' call the 'close()'?
> They should be doing almost same thing but I can see there is difference
> between two, which may mean something is missed, unifying them fixes those
> missed parts too.
> Just a reminder that there can be tree valid path and should work fine:
> 1- user 'close()' the PMD
> 2- user directly 'remove()' the PMD
> 3- user first 'close()', later 'remove()' the PMD
>
> Thanks,
> Ferruh
OK, I got your point, will do this in v4.
Thanks
Yunjian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-04-08 1:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-04-07 4:22 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/5] net/tap: fix mbuf and mem leak during queue release wangyunjian
2020-04-07 12:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2020-04-08 1:18 ` wangyunjian
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).