From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86E5A04B1 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 11:08:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86136C904; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 11:08:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (mail-wr1-f65.google.com [209.85.221.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893EEC904 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 11:08:03 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id g14so6487231wrm.13 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 02:08:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nfware-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RxcMNh405qnEJB50V6QhJhfx7OlnXQU3DQgBDM9ES2c=; b=m9UfDbuGR3VtQYKCDxPuv/pnrj4xj71BDB2N+A59OIb4NX1rv/QdekAenB45dIxRwz wcCzxBeB1rfTlKFCT9fezFing+1p2SBysPAUORFrrFsHCLP8hikQEcWtnHxu0W1SX3iQ 3M2k/49nToEC7ERc1meC/BU6uIPNTV9NuhbGzgZH3AJDeCT2kFjujFCaSCi+NvcZW80w JnFgfbPhNkBuFNpoJ0UhNnto+2wdiiU/dFz/nW6xuJNTm9YQMLKMxOfY4wJ7VPOOJNll t6jqC9OBTbH0HDiftbb6AcTCyfZ5R9rntbXK+sUZQYrw8TKOGFG01ko7LWst+VEC8fa4 CbAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RxcMNh405qnEJB50V6QhJhfx7OlnXQU3DQgBDM9ES2c=; b=BcPM4eqysoHJNpS0qvUhoXtDhRKUUrD8RtvQb5Fx+B9CT1Jb1iHRAj8ujYyfGw9hnv 6JUJjtBEcJgu5G2ixVosIKbEil0xCiIpd0useIBzopp0pQbjXGIaKq19C3a9QBl1m+9U WymcL6GRtdHeupU7tAFLz09N289QKno0ny7vN+yWPtySy9Ot82VGSDzzSN3GO89gt3lz HO0Ta6Ej5s9CrofGjYoAAiEhD1WOlFIb3eZYnFyANj534DDtdkXxQNjiT/Ijyu40vNpO 7OaOEJRDnSkoyrPbReB0NOleSogqc9LDv+53Wxn3l22VfsQkeAon0Q+wU9Bd4c7kuo6c x6Cg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530/EMAa0+SSZ5p4T1x4jt7UpoPImbF823dgpDOTtM6xrlWGkvHw qIiSLEeWSAS/gOGCs60ZScAQSmao26Gd/K2OyuqZMA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz9Vwl4d9ZY9nW7eagrpQu9y9CMEqCL/eUpkcl70Dsdz8dModq0q9JJKbVPS3Zi1ygVgmPKfU13dqpVlWl7z4U= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:45:: with SMTP id k5mr2312402wrx.108.1606212482112; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 02:08:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201117085639.40307-1-iryzhov@nfware.com> <2ada7ab1daa242ae8e256b8432141d32@intel.com> <2232269.sFVF7DV9YO@thomas> <7958eb303ef7422bb1f7bac77b914d49@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <7958eb303ef7422bb1f7bac77b914d49@intel.com> From: Igor Ryzhov Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:07:51 +0300 Message-ID: To: "Zhang, Qi Z" Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev , "Guo, Jia" , dpdk stable , "Xing, Beilei" , "Yigit, Ferruh" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/i40e: fix counters X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" This code is just ported from the Linux kernel where it is used for around 7 years, so I suppose it is pretty safe. But of course, take your time to test it, I am fine with getting this in the next LTS release. Igor On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:43 PM Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 4:25 PM > > To: Igor Ryzhov ; dev ; Guo, Jia > > > > Cc: dpdk stable ; Xing, Beilei ; > Yigit, > > Ferruh > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/i40e: fix counters > > > > I will follow the recommendation of Ferruh and i40e maintainers. > > It is risky but it can be applied just before the release. > > I will suggest not to merge this patch in this release cycle, we need time > to fully test it and it can always be captured in following LTS release if > no issue be found. > > Thanks > Qi > > > > > > 24/11/2020 04:34, Guo, Jia: > > > hi, igor ryzhov and Thomas > > > > > > Since this remain issue is report recently and we need to reproduce > > > the issue and evaluate the patch and guaranty no side affect for other > case, so > > I am not sure even I don't think it still have time window to hit 20.11. > But > > whatever we have begin to check your patch for now on. What do you think > so? > > > > > > > > > From: Igor Ryzhov > > > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 2:27 AM > > > To: dev > > > Cc: dpdk stable ; Xing, Beilei > > > ; Guo, Jia ; Thomas Monjalon > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/i40e: fix counters > > > > > > CC maintainers and Thomas. > > > > > > This fix should be 20.11. The issue is seen multiple times a day under > ~20G > > traffic with stats collection once per second. > > > > > > Igor > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:56 AM Igor Ryzhov > > > wrote: > > > When low and high registers are read separately, this opens the door > > > to a race condition: > > > - low register is read > > > - NIC updates the registers > > > - high register is read > > > > > > Because of this, we may end up with an incorrect counter value. > > > Let's read the registers in one shot, as it is done in Linux kernel > > > since the introduction of the i40e driver. > > > > > > Fixes: 4861cde46116 ("i40e: new poll mode driver") > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Ryzhov > > > > > > > --- > > > drivers/net/i40e/base/i40e_osdep.h | 10 ++++++++++ > > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c | 10 +++++++--- > > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/base/i40e_osdep.h > > > b/drivers/net/i40e/base/i40e_osdep.h > > > index 64b15e1b6138..ebd687240006 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/base/i40e_osdep.h > > > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/base/i40e_osdep.h > > > @@ -133,6 +133,14 @@ static inline uint32_t i40e_read_addr(volatile > void > > *addr) > > > return rte_le_to_cpu_32(I40E_PCI_REG(addr)); > > > } > > > > > > +#define I40E_PCI_REG64(reg) rte_read64(reg) > > > +#define I40E_PCI_REG64_ADDR(a, reg) \ > > > + ((volatile uint64_t *)((char *)(a)->hw_addr + (reg))) static > > > +inline uint64_t i40e_read64_addr(volatile void *addr) { > > > + return rte_le_to_cpu_64(I40E_PCI_REG64(addr)); > > > +} > > > + > > > #define I40E_PCI_REG_WRITE(reg, value) \ > > > rte_write32((rte_cpu_to_le_32(value)), reg) #define > > > I40E_PCI_REG_WRITE_RELAXED(reg, value) \ @@ -145,6 +153,8 @@ static > > > inline uint32_t i40e_read_addr(volatile void *addr) #define > > > I40E_WRITE_REG(hw, reg, value) \ > > > I40E_PCI_REG_WRITE(I40E_PCI_REG_ADDR((hw), (reg)), (value)) > > > > > > +#define I40E_READ_REG64(hw, reg) > > > +i40e_read64_addr(I40E_PCI_REG64_ADDR((hw), (reg))) > > > + > > > #define rd32(a, reg) i40e_read_addr(I40E_PCI_REG_ADDR((a), (reg))) > > > #define wr32(a, reg, value) \ > > > I40E_PCI_REG_WRITE(I40E_PCI_REG_ADDR((a), (reg)), (value)) > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c > > > b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c index 74f4ac1f9d4e..53b1e9b9e067 > > > 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c > > > @@ -6451,9 +6451,13 @@ i40e_stat_update_48(struct i40e_hw *hw, { > > > uint64_t new_data; > > > > > > - new_data = (uint64_t)I40E_READ_REG(hw, loreg); > > > - new_data |= ((uint64_t)(I40E_READ_REG(hw, hireg) & > > > - I40E_16_BIT_MASK)) << I40E_32_BIT_WIDTH; > > > + if (hw->device_id == I40E_DEV_ID_QEMU) { > > > + new_data = (uint64_t)I40E_READ_REG(hw, loreg); > > > + new_data |= ((uint64_t)(I40E_READ_REG(hw, hireg) & > > > + I40E_16_BIT_MASK)) << > > I40E_32_BIT_WIDTH; > > > + } else { > > > + new_data = I40E_READ_REG64(hw, loreg); > > > + } > > > > > > if (!offset_loaded) > > > *offset = new_data; > > > -- > > > 2.29.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > >