From: Yasin CANER [mailto:yasinncaner@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 18 May 2023 10.37 Hello, I found a second free command in my code and removed it. David pointed to the right . MB: Good to hear. On the other hand, do you think we need to avoid miscalculations? Is it better to patch it or not? MB: There is no bug in the library, so no need to patch it. The returned value was a consequence of using the library incorrectly (freeing twice). or it needs to be aware of the second free command. Sharing more information about env. # ethtool -i mgmt driver: virtio_net version: 1.0.0 firmware-version: expansion-rom-version: bus-info: 0000:00:03.0 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: no supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: no supports-priv-flags: no NAME="Ubuntu" VERSION="20.04.4 LTS (Focal Fossa)" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Ubuntu 20.04.4 LTS" VERSION_ID="20.04" Linux spgw-dpdk 5.4.0-146-generic #163-Ubuntu SMP Fri Mar 17 18:26:02 UTC 2023 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Best regards. Morten Brørup , 17 May 2023 Çar, 15:23 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > From: David Marchand [mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2023 13.53 > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:05 AM Morten Brørup > wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 May 2023 13:41:46 +0000 > > > Yasin CANER wrote: > > > > > > > From: Yasin CANER > > > > > > > > after a while working rte_mempool_avail_count function returns bigger > > > > than mempool size that cause miscalculation rte_mempool_in_use_count. > > > > > > > > it helps to avoid miscalculation rte_mempool_in_use_count. > > Is this issue reproduced with an application of the reporter, or a > DPDK in-tree application? > > > > > > > > > > Bugzilla ID: 1229 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yasin CANER > > > > > > An alternative that avoids some code duplication. > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c > > > index cf5dea2304a7..2406b112e7b0 100644 > > > --- a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c > > > +++ b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c > > > @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ rte_mempool_avail_count(const struct rte_mempool > > > *mp) > > > count = rte_mempool_ops_get_count(mp); > > > > > > if (mp->cache_size == 0) > > > - return count; > > > + goto exit; > > > > This bug can only occur here (i.e. with cache_size==0) if > rte_mempool_ops_get_count() returns an incorrect value. The bug should be > fixed there instead. > > > > > > > > MB (continued): The bug must be in the underlying mempool driver. I took a > look at the ring and stack drivers, and they seem fine. > > Or it could indicate a double free (or equivalent) issue from the > application (either through direct call to mempool API, or indirectly > like sending/freeing an already sent/freed packet for example). Good point, David. @Yasin, if you build DPDK and your application with RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG set in config/rte_config.h, the mempool cookies should catch any double frees.