From: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>,
Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>,
"mb@smartsharesystems.com" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru" <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>,
"Yang, Qiming" <qiming.yang@intel.com>,
"Wu, Wenjun1" <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"roretzla@linux.microsoft.com" <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>,
"maobibo@loongson.cn" <maobibo@loongson.cn>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] net/ixgbe: add proper memory barriers for some Rx functions
Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 02:10:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM4PR11MB59940F773E4CEF01650A392BD7789@DM4PR11MB5994.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AS8PR08MB708046474AE03B0FB27FC0519E719@AS8PR08MB7080.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:03 PM
> To: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>;
> mb@smartsharesystems.com; konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru; Yang,
> Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com; roretzla@linux.microsoft.com; dev@dpdk.org;
> stable@dpdk.org; maobibo@loongson.cn; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] net/ixgbe: add proper memory barriers for some Rx
> functions
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 6:24 PM
> > To: qi.z.zhang@intel.com; mb@smartsharesystems.com;
> > konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru; qiming.yang@intel.com;
> > wenjun1.wu@intel.com; zhoumin@loongson.cn
> > Cc: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com;
> > roretzla@linux.microsoft.com; dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org;
> > maobibo@loongson.cn
> > Subject: [PATCH v3] net/ixgbe: add proper memory barriers for some Rx
> > functions
> >
> > Segmentation fault has been observed while running the
> > ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro() function to receive packets on the Loongson
> > 3C5000 processor which has 64 cores and 4 NUMA nodes.
> >
> > From the ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro() function, we found that as long as the
> > first packet has the EOP bit set, and the length of this packet is
> > less than or equal to rxq->crc_len, the segmentation fault will
> > definitely happen even though on the other platforms. For example, if
> > we made the first packet which had the EOP bit set had a zero length by
> force, the segmentation fault would happen on X86.
> >
> > Because when processd the first packet the first_seg->next will be
> > NULL, if at the same time this packet has the EOP bit set and its
> > length is less than or equal to rxq->crc_len, the following loop will be
> executed:
> >
> > for (lp = first_seg; lp->next != rxm; lp = lp->next)
> > ;
> >
> > We know that the first_seg->next will be NULL under this condition. So
> > the expression of
> > lp->next->next will cause the segmentation fault.
> >
> > Normally, the length of the first packet with EOP bit set will be
> > greater than rxq-
> > >crc_len. However, the out-of-order execution of CPU may make the read
> > >ordering of the
> > status and the rest of the descriptor fields in this function not be
> > correct. The related codes are as following:
> >
> > rxdp = &rx_ring[rx_id];
> > #1 staterr = rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxdp->wb.upper.status_error);
> >
> > if (!(staterr & IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD))
> > break;
> >
> > #2 rxd = *rxdp;
> >
> > The sentence #2 may be executed before sentence #1. This action is
> > likely to make the ready packet zero length. If the packet is the
> > first packet and has the EOP bit set, the above segmentation fault will
> happen.
> >
> > So, we should add a proper memory barrier to ensure the read ordering
> > be correct. We also did the same thing in the ixgbe_recv_pkts()
> > function to make the rxd data be valid even though we did not find
> segmentation fault in this function.
> >
> > Fixes: 8eecb3295ae ("ixgbe: add LRO support")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>
> > ---
> > v3:
> > - Use rte_smp_rmb() as the proper memory barrier instead of rte_rmb()
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - Make the calling of rte_rmb() for all platforms
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 39
> > ++++++++++++----------------------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c index
> > 6b3d3a4d1a..80bcaef093 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > @@ -1823,6 +1823,12 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct
> rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
> > staterr = rxdp->wb.upper.status_error;
> > if (!(staterr & rte_cpu_to_le_32(IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD)))
> > break;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * This barrier is to ensure that status_error which includes
> DD
> > + * bit is loaded before loading of other descriptor words.
> > + */
> > + rte_smp_rmb();
> > rxd = *rxdp;
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -2089,32 +2095,8 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct
> > rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts,
> >
> > next_desc:
> > /*
> > - * The code in this whole file uses the volatile pointer to
> > - * ensure the read ordering of the status and the rest of the
> > - * descriptor fields (on the compiler level only!!!). This is so
> > - * UGLY - why not to just use the compiler barrier instead?
> DPDK
> > - * even has the rte_compiler_barrier() for that.
> > - *
> > - * But most importantly this is just wrong because this
> doesn't
> > - * ensure memory ordering in a general case at all. For
> > - * instance, DPDK is supposed to work on Power CPUs where
> > - * compiler barrier may just not be enough!
> > - *
> > - * I tried to write only this function properly to have a
> > - * starting point (as a part of an LRO/RSC series) but the
> > - * compiler cursed at me when I tried to cast away the
> > - * "volatile" from rx_ring (yes, it's volatile too!!!). So, I'm
> > - * keeping it the way it is for now.
> > - *
> > - * The code in this file is broken in so many other places and
> > - * will just not work on a big endian CPU anyway therefore
> the
> > - * lines below will have to be revisited together with the rest
> > - * of the ixgbe PMD.
> > - *
> > - * TODO:
> > - * - Get rid of "volatile" and let the compiler do its job.
> > - * - Use the proper memory barrier (rte_rmb()) to ensure
> the
> > - * memory ordering below.
> > + * It is necessary to use a proper memory barrier to ensure
> the
> > + * memory ordering below.
> > */
> > rxdp = &rx_ring[rx_id];
> > staterr = rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxdp->wb.upper.status_error);
> > @@ -2122,6 +2104,11 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct
> > rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts,
> > if (!(staterr & IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD))
> > break;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * This barrier is to ensure that status_error which includes
> DD
> > + * bit is loaded before loading of other descriptor words.
> > + */
> > + rte_smp_rmb();
> > rxd = *rxdp;
> >
> > PMD_RX_LOG(DEBUG, "port_id=%u queue_id=%u rx_id=%u "
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel.
Thanks
Qi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-15 2:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20230424090532.367194-1-zhoumin@loongson.cn>
2023-05-06 10:23 ` Min Zhou
2023-05-08 6:03 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-05-15 2:10 ` Zhang, Qi Z [this message]
2023-06-12 10:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-12 11:58 ` zhoumin
2023-06-12 12:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-13 1:42 ` zhoumin
2023-06-13 3:30 ` Jiawen Wu
2023-06-13 10:12 ` zhoumin
2023-06-14 10:58 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-06-13 9:25 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-06-20 15:52 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-21 6:50 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-06-13 9:44 ` [PATCH v4] " Min Zhou
2023-06-13 10:20 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-06-13 12:11 ` Zhang, Qi Z
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=DM4PR11MB59940F773E4CEF01650A392BD7789@DM4PR11MB5994.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
--cc=maobibo@loongson.cn \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=qiming.yang@intel.com \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=wenjun1.wu@intel.com \
--cc=zhoumin@loongson.cn \
/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).