From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1242BF4
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 14:41:52 +0100 (CET)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26])
by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
13 Jan 2018 05:41:52 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,353,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="10021732"
Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.9.53])
([10.252.9.53])
by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2018 05:41:50 -0800
To: Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Cc: bruce.richardson@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com,
thomas@monjalon.net
References: <1512067450-59203-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
<1515643654-129489-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
<1515643654-129489-4-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Message-ID: <a68d25f3-f90c-2820-79e4-2d3285b80c61@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:41:50 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1515643654-129489-4-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] eal: add synchronous multi-process
communication
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:41:53 -0000
On 11-Jan-18 4:07 AM, Jianfeng Tan wrote:
> ---
> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c | 144 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h | 73 +++++++++++++++-
> lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 2 +
> 3 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
> index 70519cc..f194a52 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
> static int mp_fd = -1;
> static char *mp_sec_sockets[MAX_SECONDARY_PROCS];
> static pthread_mutex_t mp_mutex_action = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
> +static pthread_mutex_t mp_mutex_request = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
>
> struct action_entry {
> TAILQ_ENTRY(action_entry) next; /**< Next attached action entry */
> @@ -49,6 +50,10 @@ static struct action_entry_list action_entry_list =
>
> struct mp_msghdr {
> char action_name[MAX_ACTION_NAME_LEN];
> +#define MP_MSG 0 /* Share message with peers, will not block */
> +#define MP_REQ 1 /* Request for information, Will block for a reply */
> +#define MP_REP 2 /* Reply to previously-received request */
nitpicking, but... response instead of reply?
> + int type;
> int fds_num;
> int len_params;
> char params[0];
> @@ -138,7 +143,8 @@ rte_eal_mp_action_unregister(const char *name)
> }
>
> static int
> -read_msg(int fd, char *buf, int buflen, int *fds, int fds_num)
> +read_msg(int fd, char *buf, int buflen,
> + int *fds, int fds_num, struct sockaddr_un *s)
<snip>
> + return mp_send(action_name, params, len_params,
> + fds, fds_num, MP_MSG, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +int
> +rte_eal_mp_request(const char *action_name,
> + void *params,
> + int len_p,
> + int fds[],
> + int fds_in,
> + int fds_out)
name == NULL? name too long?
> +{
> + int i, j;
> + int sockfd;
> + int nprocs;
> + int ret = 0;
> + struct mp_msghdr *req;
> + struct timeval tv;
> + char buf[MAX_MSG_LENGTH];
> + struct mp_msghdr *hdr;
> +
> + RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "request: %s\n", action_name);
> +
> + if (fds_in > SCM_MAX_FD || fds_out > SCM_MAX_FD) {
> + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Cannot send more than %d FDs\n", SCM_MAX_FD);
> + rte_errno = -E2BIG;
(this also applies to previous patches) you set rte_errno to -EINVAL in
format_msg when message with parameters is too big - should that be
setting -E2BIG as well? Also, maybe not set rte_errno in multiple
places, and put all parameter checking (or at least errno setting) in
rte_eal_mp_* functions?
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + req = format_msg(action_name, params, len_p, fds_in, MP_REQ);
> + if (req == NULL)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if ((sockfd = open_unix_fd(0)) < 0) {
> + free(req);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + tv.tv_sec = 5; /* 5 Secs Timeout */
> + tv.tv_usec = 0;
> + if (setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO,
> + (const void *)&tv, sizeof(struct timeval)) < 0)
> + RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "Failed to set recv timeout\n");
> +
> + /* Only allow one req at a time */
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&mp_mutex_request);
> +
> + if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
> + nprocs = 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < MAX_SECONDARY_PROCS; ++i)
What follows is a bit confusing, some comments explaining what happens
and maybe more informative variable names would've been helpful.
> + if (!mp_sec_sockets[i]) {
> + j = i;
> + nprocs++;
> + }
> +
> + if (nprocs > 1) {
> + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
> + "multi secondary processes not supported\n");
> + goto free_and_ret;
> + }
> +
<snip>
--
Thanks,
Anatoly