DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
From: 方统浩50450 <fangtonghao@sangfor.com.cn>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
	 Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org,  jia.guo@intel.com,
	cunming.liang@intel.com, qi.z.zhang@intel.com,
	 Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:11:42 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Message-ID: <AOsAhADkCERko9VXgoN8KqpE.3.1579227102303.Hmail.fangtonghao@sangfor.com.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <61a10224-b316-2dd1-0bc1-9db64643bbff@intel.com>

ok, I send a new version of my patch and rewrite commit log again.
you can check my patch in https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/64819/

发件人:Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
发送日期:2020-01-16 20:18:18
收件人:"方统浩50450" <fangtonghao@sangfor.com.cn>
抄送人:Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,dev@dpdk.org,stable@dpdk.org,jia.guo@intel.com,cunming.liang@intel.com,qi.z.zhang@intel.com,jungle845943968@outlook.com,Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
主题:Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory>On 1/16/2020 11:35 AM, 方统浩50450 wrote:
>>>@Fang, only can you please make a new version to update the
>>>'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' function comment to document shared data is not updated
>>>for the secondary process?
>>>So this suggest going on with Fang's patch. I only requested an additional note
>>>in function comment related to this secondary check.
>> @Ferruh Yigit
>> Should I update a new version patch of "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function and explain
>> wthether the regular functioning of secondary process is affected or not?
>> I cant figure out what you need me to do.
>Hi Fang,
>Yes can you please send a new version of your patch.
>In new version, additionally update the 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info()' function
>comment to document that function updates 'eth_dev->data' only for primary process.
>> 发件人:Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> 发送日期:2020-01-16 17:04:09
>> 收件人:Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>> 抄送人:"方统浩50450" <fangtonghao@sangfor.com.cn>,dev@dpdk.org,stable@dpdk.org,jia.guo@intel.com,cunming.liang@intel.com,qi.z.zhang@intel.com,jungle845943968@outlook.com,Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
>> 主题:Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory>On 1/16/2020 7:43 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/20 11:43 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 15/01/2020 19:35, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>> On 1/15/2020 6:49 AM, 方统浩50450 wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Ferruh, thanks for your message.
>>>>>>> We developed a ethtool-dpdk which is secondary process based dpdk 17.08 version. Our device
>>>>>>> support hotplug detach, but hotplug deatch is failed when we use ethtool-dpdk.We found the
>>>>>>> secondary process will change the shared memory when initializing.Secondary process calls
>>>>>>> "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate" function and enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function.
>>>>>>> (rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_probe -> rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate -> rte_eth_copy_pci_info)
>>>>>>> Then it sets the value of struct "rte_eth_dev_data.dev_flags" to zero.In our platform, this value
>>>>>>> is equal to 0x0003.(RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE | RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC),but after reset
>>>>>>> the "dev_flags", the value changed to 0x0002.(RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE).So, our device hotplug
>>>>>>> detach is failed.I found the similar problem in other dpdk version, include dpdk 19.11.Even though
>>>>>>> the deivce hotplug detach is discarded,but i think the shared memory changed is unexpected by primary
>>>>>>> process.
>>>> Hold on, just for my understanding. As far as I can see
>>>> RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE was removed in 17.11. Does it
>>>> change something in above description?
>>>Overall secondary overwrites primary values, I think we should fix it
>>>independent from the flags involved.
>>>>>> I agree this is the problem.
>>>>>> In the driver code, 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' is called only by primary process,
>>>>>> but the generic code is faulty.
>>>>>> And in 19.11 additionally 'eth_dev_pci_specific_init' also seems has same problem.
>>>> Yes, as I understand RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE,
>>>> RTE_ETH_DEV_NOLIVE_MAC_ADDR may be lost because of
>>>> reinit (if not restored in other branches). Bad anyway.
>>>>>>> Our driver is ixgbe, i think this problem has a little relationship with driver, Secondary process
>>>>>>> enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" by "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate".And I agree your opinion, the helper
>>>>>>> function should simple on what it does.I have two ways to fix this problem, one is add an if-statement
>>>>>>> in "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate" function to forbid secondary process enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function,
>>>>>>> another way is add an if-statement in "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function to forbid secondary process change
>>>>>>> shared memory.And First way need to ensure the "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function won't be called anywhere else.
>>>>>>> I think the second way is simple and lower risk.
>>>>>> Yes these are the two options.
>>>>>> I agree adding check in the 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' covers all cases and safer.
>>>>>> BUT my concern was adding decision making to simple/leaf function and make it
>>>>>> harder to debug/use, instead of giving what primary/secondary process should
>>>>>> call decision in higher level.
>>>>>> But I just recognized that some PMDs are calling 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' on
>>>>>> secondary process, like mlx4 or szedata2, and most probably this is not their
>>>>>> intention.
>>>>>> And 'eth_dev->intr_handle' set in 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info', not calling this
>>>>>> function may have side affect of 'eth_dev->intr_handle' not set in secondary.
>>>>>> With above considerations I am OK to your proposal to cover all cases, Thomas,
>>>>>> Andrew, any concern?
>>>> I would put if condition in rte_eth_copy_pci_info().
>>>> It is the function which writes shared space from
>>>> secondary process when it should not be done and it
>>>> should be fixed there.
>>>>> Do you mean drivers need to be fixed?
>>>> I'm not sure that I fully understand it. Since copy function
>>>> cares about intr_handle copying I'm afraid that it is not
>>>> 100% correct to skip it in secondary process completely as
>>>> many drivers do right now. Basically it makes eth_dev structure
>>>> in secondary process inconsistent. However, it looks like
>>>> most of these drivers simply obtain handle from pci_dev
>>>> directly and it explains why they are not affected.
>>>> There are exceptions which are potentially bugs, e.g.
>>>> drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c: ice_interrupt_handler at the end.
>>>> I think that it would be better if intr_handle is always
>>>> correct in eth_dev (both primary and secondary cases) and
>>>> drivers use it instead of the same from pci_dev.
>>>So this suggest going on with Fang's patch. I only requested an additional note
>>>in function comment related to this secondary check.

  reply index

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-09 12:27 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix secondary process change share memory Fang TongHao
2020-01-10  7:30 ` Jeff Guo
2020-01-10  7:53   ` 方统浩50450
2020-01-13  5:03 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory Fang TongHao
2020-01-14 14:45   ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-15  6:49     ` 方统浩50450
2020-01-15 18:35       ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-15 20:43         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-16  7:43           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-01-16  9:04             ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-16 11:35               ` 方统浩50450
2020-01-16 12:18                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-17  2:11                   ` 方统浩50450 [this message]
2020-01-16  9:00           ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-17  2:08   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Fang TongHao
2020-01-17  8:33     ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-01-17 17:58       ` Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=AOsAhADkCERko9VXgoN8KqpE.3.1579227102303.Hmail.fangtonghao@sangfor.com.cn \
    --to=fangtonghao@sangfor.com.cn \
    --cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
    --cc=cunming.liang@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=jia.guo@intel.com \
    --cc=jungle845943968@outlook.com \
    --cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
	public-inbox-index dev

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox