From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-he1eur01on0058.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.0.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0132C2E for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:04:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Mellanox.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=M9Fhr8dsVl5v8rtNzgHW5+aLoaeiUTCstMuDHljBu24=; b=f0nFj70vMXHBVRJFdP2YbVNvPNTV4F6L7O2wY2mLMJ/MDAd5EujJq74jZ6YVusgrbNqnw329bofU4D0My7+NwO1zdxexWMSJ3OP1sO+OtTBcfZ6n35HIyWGLIvUh+fJPtdPwXkkEKMjsyJeiLxZsMvUcODZD9CqoETwPaTE9Mzc= Received: from AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.133.21.26) by AM6PR0502MB3910.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.133.21.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.407.7; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:04:36 +0000 Received: from AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6c28:c6b3:de94:a733]) by AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6c28:c6b3:de94:a733%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0407.012; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:04:36 +0000 From: Matan Azrad To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Thomas Monjalon , Gaetan Rivet , "Wu, Jingjing" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , Neil Horman , "Richardson, Bruce" Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership Thread-Index: AQHTihf/M9xg8LYorUSRFqZtTc27hqNtNdVQgAFomACAAAOCwIAAuwQAgABvY+CABQwJgIAAEk3ggABinoCAANUIAA== Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:04:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1511870281-15282-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <1515318351-4756-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <1515318351-4756-3-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725880E3B9D6@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627B12A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627CCB0@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627DC25@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627DE30@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627DE30@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US, he-IL Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=matan@mellanox.com; x-originating-ip: [85.64.136.190] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM6PR0502MB3910; 7:Mw82IXatq9vFEPWwmLw2klSna/kIn+rv0S9aUXJzzyUpF4EllIRXFj5l8XIK8YQzKp5mCh1dK+HVN7bVpWXmN1R1R1yOv+BE0wS1Wiy99x65gIZKNXaoU3tO8P/1pN2F3Vk2tB6FRIl0/KLL0tiA+bj2+JqZ1mIgq3JXKPxIihF5pfseTuqtPx+cZFzc+GgF1imHRt5wbJOtwAcAdCFPHg6LeGKddbCsmfP5G1WVao8vb0Z6HtcKaxnELG60AEK8 x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 978dd06c-b2c6-494c-3851-08d55cb7c911 x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(48565401081)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:AM6PR0502MB3910; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM6PR0502MB3910: x-ld-processed: a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b,ExtAddr x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(60795455431006)(17755550239193); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040470)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3231023)(944501161)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041268)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:AM6PR0502MB3910; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:AM6PR0502MB3910; x-forefront-prvs: 0554B1F54F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(39380400002)(39860400002)(76104003)(199004)(189003)(8676002)(99286004)(3280700002)(3660700001)(2900100001)(86362001)(106356001)(33656002)(93886005)(26005)(66066001)(8936002)(74316002)(7736002)(305945005)(316002)(54906003)(55016002)(105586002)(81156014)(81166006)(2950100002)(97736004)(5660300001)(14454004)(229853002)(102836004)(478600001)(5250100002)(6246003)(68736007)(6436002)(2906002)(3846002)(4326008)(53936002)(6116002)(59450400001)(76176011)(25786009)(9686003)(6506007)(7696005)(110136005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM6PR0502MB3910; H:AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: mellanox.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: YBp4ek115NK8C+BdOfqaKTme8yBD3ihn8h3jIZMbXkqlgtmxxmlGCkvwM80N8jn8LCg1bVf6BFmhYhqpYU0ztA== spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: Mellanox.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 978dd06c-b2c6-494c-3851-08d55cb7c911 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Jan 2018 08:04:36.3818 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM6PR0502MB3910 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:04:38 -0000 Hi Konstantin From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Monday, January 15, 2018 8:44 PM > Hi Matan, > > Hi Konstantin > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Monday, January 15, 2018 1:45 PM > > > Hi Matan, > > > > Hi Konstantin > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Friday, January 12, 2018 2:02 AM > > > > > Hi Matan, > > > > > > Hi Konstantin > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Thursday, January 11, 2018 2:40 PM > > > > > > > Hi Matan, > > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin > > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Wednesday, January 10, 2018 > > > > > > > > 3:36 PM > > > > > > > > > Hi Matan, > > > > > > > > > It is good to see that now scanning/updating > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[] is lock protected, but it might be > > > > > > > > > not very plausible to protect both data[] and > > > > > > > > > next_owner_id using the > > > same lock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess you mean to the owner structure in > > > rte_eth_dev_data[port_id]. > > > > > > > > The next_owner_id is read by ownership APIs(for owner > > > > > > > > validation), so it > > > > > > > makes sense to use the same lock. > > > > > > > > Actually, why not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well to me next_owner_id and rte_eth_dev_data[] are not > > > > > > > directly > > > > > related. > > > > > > > You may create new owner_id but it doesn't mean you would > > > > > > > update rte_eth_dev_data[] immediately. > > > > > > > And visa-versa - you might just want to update > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[].name or .owner_id. > > > > > > > It is not very good coding practice to use same lock for > > > > > > > non-related data structures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see the relation like next: > > > > > > Since the ownership mechanism synchronization is in ethdev > > > > > > responsibility, we must protect against user mistakes as much > > > > > > as we can by > > > > > using the same lock. > > > > > > So, if user try to set by invalid owner (exactly the ID which > > > > > > currently is > > > > > allocated) we can protect on it. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, not sure why you can't do same checking with different lock > > > > > or atomic variable? > > > > > > > > > The set ownership API is protected by ownership lock and checks > > > > the owner ID validity By reading the next owner ID. > > > > So, the owner ID allocation and set API should use the same atomic > > > mechanism. > > > > > > Sure but all you are doing for checking validity, is check that > > > owner_id > 0 &&& owner_id < next_ownwe_id, right? > > > As you don't allow owner_id overlap (16/3248 bits) you can safely do > > > same check with just atomic_get(&next_owner_id). > > > > > It will not protect it, scenario: > > - current next_id is X. > > - call set ownership of port A with owner id X by thread 0(by user mist= ake). > > - context switch=20 > > - allocate new id by thread 1 and get X and change next_id to X+1 > atomically. > > - context switch > > - Thread 0 validate X by atomic_read and succeed to take ownership. > > - The system loosed the port(or will be managed by two entities) - cras= h. >=20 >=20 > Ok, and how using lock will protect you with such scenario? The owner set API validation by thread 0 should fail because the owner vali= dation is included in the protected section. > I don't think you can protect yourself against such scenario with or with= out > locking. > Unless you'll make it harder for the mis-behaving thread to guess valid > owner_id, or add some extra logic here. >=20 > > > > > > > > The set(and others) ownership APIs already uses the ownership lock > > > > so I > > > think it makes sense to use the same lock also in ID allocation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact, for next_owner_id, you don't need a lock - just > > > > > > > > > rte_atomic_t should be enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think so, it is problematic in next_owner_id > > > > > > > > wraparound and may > > > > > > > complicate the code in other places which read it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO it is not that complicated, something like that should wo= rk I > think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* init to 0 at startup*/ > > > > > > > rte_atomic32_t *owner_id; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int new_owner_id(void) > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > int32_t x; > > > > > > > x =3D rte_atomic32_add_return(&owner_id, 1); > > > > > > > if (x > UINT16_MAX) { > > > > > > > rte_atomic32_dec(&owner_id); > > > > > > > return -EOVERWLOW; > > > > > > > } else > > > > > > > return x; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not just to keep it simple and using the same lock? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lock is also fine, I just think it better be a separate one > > > > > > > - that would protext just next_owner_id. > > > > > > > Though if you are going to use uuid here - all that probably > > > > > > > not relevant any more. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree about the uuid but still think the same lock should be > > > > > > used for > > > both. > > > > > > > > > > But with uuid you don't need next_owner_id at all, right? > > > > > So lock will only be used for rte_eth_dev_data[] fields anyway. > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I meant uint64_t, not uuid. > > > > > > Ah ok, my thought uuid_t is better as with it you don't need to > > > support your own code to allocate new owner_id, but rely on system li= bs > instead. > > > But wouldn't insist here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another alternative would be to use 2 locks - one for > > > > > > > > > next_owner_id second for actual data[] protection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another thing - you'll probably need to grab/release a > > > > > > > > > lock inside > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocated() too. > > > > > > > > > It is a public function used by drivers, so need to be pr= otected > too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I thought about it, but decided not to use lock in nex= t: > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocated > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_count > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_get_name_by_port > rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name > > > > > > > > maybe more... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I can see in patch #3 you protect by lock access to > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[].name (which seems like a good thing). > > > > > > > So I think any other public function that access > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[].name should be protected by the same lock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think so, I can understand to use the ownership lock > > > > > > here(as in port > > > > > creation) but I don't think it is necessary too. > > > > > > What are we exactly protecting here? > > > > > > Don't you think it is just timing?(ask in the next moment and > > > > > > you may get another answer) I don't see optional crash. > > > > > > > > > > Not sure what you mean here by timing... > > > > > As I understand rte_eth_dev_data[].name unique identifies device > > > > > and is used by port allocation/release/find functions. > > > > > As you stated above: > > > > > "1. The port allocation and port release synchronization will be > > > > > managed by ethdev." > > > > > To me it means that ethdev layer has to make sure that all > > > > > accesses to rte_eth_dev_data[].name are atomic. > > > > > Otherwise what would prevent the situation when one process does > > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocate()->snprintf(rte_eth_dev_data[x].name, ...) > > > > > while second one does > > > rte_eth_dev_allocated(rte_eth_dev_data[x].name, ...) ? > > > > > > > > > The second will get True or False and that is it. > > > > > > Under race condition - in the worst case it might crash, though for > > > that you'll have to be really unlucky. > > > Though in most cases as you said it would just not operate correctly. > > > I think if we start to protect dev->name by lock we need to do it > > > for all instances (both read and write). > > > > > Since under the ownership rules, the user must take ownership of a port > before using it, I still don't see a problem here. >=20 > I am not talking about owner id or name here. > I am talking about dev->name. >=20 So? The user still should take ownership of a device before using it (by na= me or by port id).=20 It can just read it without owning it, but no managing it.=20 > > Please, Can you describe specific crash scenario and explain how could = the > locking fix it? >=20 > Let say thread 0 doing rte_eth_dev_allocate()- > >snprintf(rte_eth_dev_data[x].name, ...), thread 1 doing > rte_pmd_ring_remove()->rte_eth_dev_allocated()->strcmp(). > And because of race condition - rte_eth_dev_allocated() will return > rte_eth_dev * for the wrong device. Which wrong device do you mean? I guess it is the device which currently is= being created by thread 0. > Then rte_pmd_ring_remove() will call rte_free() for related resources, wh= ile > It can still be in use by someone else. The rte_pmd_ring_remove caller(some DPDK entity) must take ownership (or va= lidate that he is the owner) of a port before doing it(free, release), so n= o issue here. Also I'm not sure I fully understand your scenario looks like moving the de= vice state setting in allocation to be after the name setting will be good. What do you think?=20 > Konstantin >=20 > > > > > > Maybe if it had been called just a moment after, It might get > > > > different > > > answer. > > > > Because these APIs don't change ethdev structure(just read), it can= be > OK. > > > > But again, I can understand to use ownership lock also here. > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin