From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>,
"Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
"Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix hotplug
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:25:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58d25937-0677-86a3-283c-08c355c0a4df@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3918529EDBED57B283B133C2EF0F0@MN2PR11MB3918.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On 1/23/2020 5:46 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix hotplug
>>>>>
>>>> This is reverting the original patch, which breaks hotplug.
>>>> I think the commit message should make this clear.
>>>> This patch is not fixing hotplug, the original patch seems to have
>>>> revealed a
>>> problem with hotplug.
>>>> Reverting this patch will not fix the underlying hotplug issue.
>>>
>>> What is the problem revealed by the original patch? Did you able to
>>> reproduce it?
>>
>> No, I thought you had.
I can't reproduce the problem mentioned in original patch, but can reproduce
now, so from my perspective "fixing testpmd hotplug"
>> There is a lot of information in the commit message, but is not clear that you
>> are reverting a patch.
OK I can add a note
>> I am ok with reverting the original patch as it has caused a problem.
>
> Just had another look at the patch, there are two changes.
> One reverts the original patch.
> The second is a fix.
Not exactly, fix is reverting, second change is removing log which is to reduce
the noise.
Both changes mentioned in the commit log.
> Suggest splitting patch into two, one for revert and second one for fix.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The 'port_id_is_invalid()' check in the 'detach_port_device()' is
>>>>> breaking the hotplug support, since at that stage port will be
>>>>> closed and validity check always fail [1] and removing the device
>>>>> is not really
>>> completed.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this cause the vfio request interrupt keep triggered
>>>>> continuously and makes the application unusable, since port is
>>>>> closed but device is not removed, the remove path keep generating
>> error log:
>>>>>
>>>>> EAL: can not get port by device 0000:00:05.0!
>>>>> EAL: can not get port by device 0000:00:05.0!
>>>>> EAL: can not get port by device 0000:00:05.0!
>>>>> EAL: can not get port by device 0000:00:05.0!
>>>>> EAL: can not get port by device 0000:00:05.0!
>>>>> EAL: can not get port by device 0000:00:05.0!
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed by removing 'port_id_is_invalid()' check from
>>>>> 'detach_port_device()', anyway it shouldn't be required. Without
>>>>> this check device remove works as expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only "Invalid port_id=0" logs seen a few times, which is because
>>>>> the actual removal not done synchronously but an alarm set for it,
>>>>> until the alarm fired application may receive many interrupts,
>>>>> expect the first ones cause the error.
>>>>> So this patch also removes the logging from checking the invalid
>>>>> port in 'rmv_port_callback()' to reduce the noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> rmv_port_callback()
>>>>> stop_port(port_id);
>>>>> close_port(port_id);
>>>>> detach_port_device(port_id);
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 43d0e304980a ("app/testpmd: fix invalid port detaching")
>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 6 ++----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
>>>>> f9f4cd1d3..3323013bb 100644
>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> @@ -2641,9 +2641,6 @@ detach_port_device(portid_t port_id)
>>>>>
>>>>> printf("Removing a device...\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> -if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN)) -return;
>>>>> -
>>>>> dev = rte_eth_devices[port_id].device; if (dev == NULL) {
>>>>> printf("Device already removed\n"); @@ -2875,7 +2872,8 @@
>>>>> rmv_port_callback(void *arg) int org_no_link_check =
>>>>> no_link_check; portid_t port_id = (intptr_t)arg;
>>>>>
>>>>> -RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_RET(port_id);
>>>>> +if (!rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(port_id))
>>>>> +return;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!test_done && port_is_forwarding(port_id)) { need_to_start =
>>>>> 1;
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.24.1
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise
>>>> Acked-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
>>>>
> Regards,
>
> Bernard.
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-23 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-23 15:15 Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-23 16:00 ` Matan Azrad
2020-01-23 17:01 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2020-01-23 17:25 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-23 17:34 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2020-01-23 17:46 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2020-01-23 18:25 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=58d25937-0677-86a3-283c-08c355c0a4df@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
--cc=matan@mellanox.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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).