From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, "Horton, Remy" <remy.horton@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix wrong memset
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:16:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2493743.8AWo4SqSMn@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10A841@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
2017-01-23 13:06, Ananyev, Konstantin:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:53 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; Horton, Remy
> > <remy.horton@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix wrong memset
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:44:11PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:40:50PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:32:23AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > > > > On 1/23/2017 11:24 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:05:25AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> index 4790faf..61f44e2 100644
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> return NULL;
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> }
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - memset(&rte_eth_devices[port_id], 0, sizeof(*eth_dev->data));
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> + memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_data));
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Not directly related to the this issue, but, after fix, this may have
> > > > > > >>>>>>> issues with secondary process.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> There were patches sent to fix this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I mean this one:
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple process
> > > > > > >>>>> model") should have fixed it.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Think about case, where secondary process uses a virtual PMD, which does
> > > > > > >>>> a rte_eth_dev_allocate() call, shouldn't this corrupt primary process
> > > > > > >>>> device data?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Yes, it may. However, I doubt that's the typical usage.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But this is a use case, and broken now,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought it was broken since the beginning?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], ...) breaks it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, you were talking about that particular case Remy's patch meant to
> > > > > fix.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> and fix is known.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And there is already a fix?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it should fix that issue.
> > > >
> > > > Well, few more thoughts: it may fix the crash issue Remy saw, but it
> > > > looks like more a workaround to me. Basically, if primary and secondary
> > > > shares a same port id, they should point to same device. Otherwise,
> > > > primary process may use eth_dev->data for a device A, while the
> > > > secondary process may use it for another device, as you said, it
> > > > could be a vdev.
> > > >
> > > > In such case, there is no way we could continue safely. That said,
> > > > the given patch avoids the total reset of eth_dev->data, while it
> > > > continues reset the eth_dev->data->name, which is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > So it's not a proper fix.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I think it's more about the usage. If primary starts with
> > > > a nic device A, while the secondary starts with a nic device B,
> > > > there is no way they could work well (unless they use different
> > > > port id).
> > >
> > > Why not?
> > > I think this is possible.
> >
> > Yes, it's possible: find another port id if that one is already taken
> > by primary process (or even by secondary process: think that primary
> > process might attatch a port later).
> >
> > > They just need to be initialized properly,
> > > so each rte_eth_devices[port_id]->data, etc. point to the right place.
> >
> > My understanding is, as far as they use different port_id, it might
> > be fine. Just not sure it's enough or not.
>
> As I understand, the main problem is that rte_eth_devices[] is local,
> while rte_eth_dev_data points to the shared memory array.
> And rte_eth_dev_allocate() assumes that if rte_eth_devices[x] is free,
> then rte_eth_dev_data[port_id] is also free.
> Which is wrong in case when primary/secondary processes have different devices attached.
> Another problem is that inside rte_ethdev.c we manipulate rte_eth_dev_data[]
> contents without grabbing any lock.
Yes there are a lot of problems with the multiproc mode because it has
been implemented as a hack.
We are fixing some cases without figuring the whole picture.
I'll apply the patch from Remy which fixes a case where process creates
vdev (local data) and, hopefully, primary does no hotplug of PCI dev.
I'll restart this discussion with a bigger picture of what multiproc is,
and what are the issues.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-25 11:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-20 8:04 Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-20 10:20 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-01-20 10:34 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-20 11:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-01-20 18:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-01-20 11:21 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-01-20 15:27 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-01-22 2:45 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-23 9:41 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-01-23 10:34 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-23 11:05 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-01-23 11:24 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-23 11:32 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-01-23 11:40 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-23 11:56 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-23 12:44 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-23 12:52 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-23 13:06 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-01-23 13:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-01-25 11:16 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2017-01-28 13:14 ` Yuanhan Liu
2017-01-30 11:07 ` Remy Horton
2017-01-24 8:29 ` Remy Horton
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=2493743.8AWo4SqSMn@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=remy.horton@intel.com \
--cc=yuanhan.liu@linux.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).