From: Stephen Hemminger <email@example.com>
To: "Loftus, Ciara" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <email@example.com>,
"Zhang, Qi Z" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Burakov, Anatoly" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/af_xdp: fix support of secondary process
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 07:43:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:23:57 +0000
"Loftus, Ciara" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> > Sent: Friday 3 September 2021 17:15
> > To: email@example.com
> > Cc: Stephen Hemminger <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
> > email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/af_xdp: fix support of secondary process
> > Doing basic operations like info_get or get_stats was broken
> > in af_xdp PMD. The info_get would crash because dev->device
> > was NULL in secondary process. Fix this by doing same initialization
> > as af_packet and tap devices.
> > The get_stats would crash because the XDP socket is not open in
> > primary process. As a workaround don't query kernel for dropped
> > packets when called from secondary process.
> > Note: this does not address the other bug which is that transmitting
> > in secondary process is broken because the send() in tx_kick
> > will fail because XDP socket fd is not valid in secondary process.
> Hi Stephen,
> Apologies for the delayed reply, I was on vacation.
> In the Bugzilla report you suggest we:
> "mark AF_XDP as broken in with primary/secondary
> and return an error in probe in secondary process".
> I agree with this suggestion. However with this patch we still permit secondary, and just make sure it doesn't crash for get_stats. Did you change your mind?
> Personally, I would prefer to have primary/secondary either working 100% or else not allowed at all by throwing an error during probe. What do you think? Do you have a reason/use case to permit secondary processes despite some features not being available eg. full stats, tx?
There are two cases where secondary is useful even if send/receive can't work from secondary process.
The pdump and proc-info applications can work with these patches.
I am using XDP over pdump as an easy way to get packets into the code for testing.
The flag in the documentation doesn't have a "limited" version.
If you want, will send another patch to disable secondary support.
Supporting secondary, means adding a mechanism to pass the socket around.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-20 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-03 16:15 [dpdk-stable] " Stephen Hemminger
2021-09-15 8:19 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-09-20 13:23 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Loftus, Ciara
2021-09-20 14:43 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2021-09-20 15:09 ` Loftus, Ciara
2021-09-21 17:45 ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-09-23 12:33 ` Loftus, Ciara
2021-10-05 15:02 ` Ferruh Yigit
You may reply publicly 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 \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).