patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: "Van Haaren\, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>,
	"dev\@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"stable\@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] test/service: fix wait for service core
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:10:16 -0500
Message-ID: <f7twobl3zl3.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8wkXdXxcDz59uCxmYvKDYK1EaBj4yapj1Orwt2G39ycSg@mail.gmail.com>

David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:16 PM Van Haaren, Harry
> <harry.van.haaren@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 2:10 PM
>> > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
>> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] test/service: fix wait for service core
>> >
>> > Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com> writes:
>> >
>> > > This commit fixes a sporadic failure of the service_autotest
>> > > unit test, as seen in the DPDK CI. The failure occurs as the main test
>> > > thread did not wait on the service-thread to return, and allowing it
>> > > to read a flag before the service was able to write to it.
>> > >
>> > > The fix changes the wait API call to specific the service-core ID,
>> > > and this waits for cores with both ROLE_RTE and ROLE_SERVICE.
>> > >
>> > > The rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore() call does not (and should not) wait
>> > > for service cores, so must not be used to wait on service-cores.
>> > >
>> > > Fixes: f038a81e1c56 ("service: add unit tests")
>> > >
>> > > Reported-by: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
>> > >
>> > > ---
>> >
>> > It might also be good to document this behavior in the API area.  It's
>> > unclear that the lcore wait function which takes a core id will work,
>> > but the broad wait will not.
>>
>> Yes agreed that docs can improve here - different patch.
>>
>>
>> > > Given this is a fix in the unit test, and not a functional change
>> > > I'm not sure its worth backporting to LTS / stable releases?
>> > > I've not added stable on CC yet.
>> >
>> > I think it's worth it if the LTS / stable branches use the unit tests
>> > (otherwise, they will observe sporadic failures).
>>
>> Ok, I've added stable@dpdk.org on CC now
>>
>>
>> > >  app/test/test_service_cores.c | 2 +-
>> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/app/test/test_service_cores.c b/app/test/test_service_cores.c
>> > > index 9fe38f5e0..a922c7ddc 100644
>> > > --- a/app/test/test_service_cores.c
>> > > +++ b/app/test/test_service_cores.c
>> > > @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ service_lcore_en_dis_able(void)
>> > >     int ret = rte_eal_remote_launch(service_remote_launch_func, NULL,
>> > >                                     slcore_id);
>> > >     TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(0, ret, "Ex-service core remote launch failed.");
>> > > -   rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();
>> > > +   rte_eal_wait_lcore(slcore_id);
>> > >     TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(1, service_remote_launch_flag,
>> > >                     "Ex-service core function call had no effect.");
>> >
>> > Should we also have some change like the following (just a guess):
>> >
>> > diff --git a/app/test/test_service_cores.c b/app/test/test_service_cores.c
>> > index 9fe38f5e08..695c35ac6c 100644
>> > --- a/app/test/test_service_cores.c
>> > +++ b/app/test/test_service_cores.c
>> > @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ service_app_lcore_poll_impl(const int mt_safe)
>> >
>> >       /* flag done, then wait for the spawned 2nd core to return */
>> >       params[0] = 1;
>> > -     rte_eal_mp_wait_lcore();
>> > +     rte_eal_wait_lcore(app_core2);
>> >
>> >       /* core two gets launched first - and should hold the service lock */
>> >       TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(0, app_core2_ret,
>>
>>
>> I reviewed this usage of the function, and I believe it waits on application
>> cores (aka, ROLE_RTE, not ROLE_SERVICE). Hence this usage is actually correct.
>> Please review and double check my logic though - more eyes is good.
>>
>
> I will check it later tonight but I am for taking this in 19.11 if we
> can get more stable tests.
> Aaron, do you have an objection?

No objection


  reply index

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20191127132027.80239-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
     [not found] ` <f7t7e3l5s1a.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com>
2019-11-27 14:16   ` Van Haaren, Harry
2019-11-27 18:11     ` David Marchand
2019-11-27 19:10       ` Aaron Conole [this message]
2019-11-27 20:11     ` David Marchand
2019-11-27 21:38 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " David Marchand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=f7twobl3zl3.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com \
    --to=aconole@redhat.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    /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

patches for DPDK stable branches

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 stable/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 stable stable/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \
		stable@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index stable


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.stable


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox