DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Hiroyuki Mikita <h.mikita89@gmail.com>,
	"olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf: decrease refcnt when detaching
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:06:27 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B51838@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1463417600-20943-1-git-send-email-h.mikita89@gmail.com>

Hi Hiroyuki,

> 
> The rte_pktmbuf_detach() function should decrease refcnt on a direct
> buffer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hiroyuki Mikita <h.mikita89@gmail.com>
> ---
> v2:
> * introduced a new function rte_pktmbuf_detach2() which decrease refcnt.
> * marked rte_pktmbuf_detach() as deprecated.
> * added comments about refcnt to rte_pktmbuf_attach() and rte_pktmbuf_detach().
> * checked refcnt when detaching in unit tests.
> * added this issue to release notes.
> 
>  app/test/test_mbuf.c                   |  9 +++++--
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst | 11 ++++-----
>  lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h             | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test/test_mbuf.c b/app/test/test_mbuf.c
> index 98ff93a..2bf05eb 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_mbuf.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_mbuf.c
> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ test_attach_from_different_pool(void)
>  	struct rte_mbuf *clone = NULL;
>  	struct rte_mbuf *clone2 = NULL;
>  	char *data, *c_data, *c_data2;
> +	uint16_t refcnt;
> 
>  	/* alloc a mbuf */
>  	m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(pktmbuf_pool);
> @@ -508,13 +509,17 @@ test_attach_from_different_pool(void)
>  		GOTO_FAIL("invalid refcnt in m\n");
> 
>  	/* detach the clones */
> -	rte_pktmbuf_detach(clone);
> +	refcnt = rte_pktmbuf_detach2(clone);
>  	if (c_data != rte_pktmbuf_mtod(clone, char *))
>  		GOTO_FAIL("clone was not detached properly\n");
> +	if (refcnt != 2 || rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) != 2)
> +		GOTO_FAIL("invalid refcnt in m\n");
> 
> -	rte_pktmbuf_detach(clone2);
> +	refcnt = rte_pktmbuf_detach2(clone2);
>  	if (c_data2 != rte_pktmbuf_mtod(clone2, char *))
>  		GOTO_FAIL("clone2 was not detached properly\n");
> +	if (refcnt != 1 || rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) != 1)
> +		GOTO_FAIL("invalid refcnt in m\n");
> 
>  	/* free the clones and the initial mbuf */
>  	rte_pktmbuf_free(clone2);
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst
> index f6d543c..9678c1f 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst
> @@ -77,13 +77,10 @@ Other
>  Known Issues
>  ------------
> 
> -This section should contain new known issues in this release. Sample format:
> -
> -* **Add title in present tense with full stop.**
> -
> -  Add a short 1-2 sentence description of the known issue in the present
> -  tense. Add information on any known workarounds.
> -
> +* The ``rte_pktmbuf_detach()`` function does not decrement the direct
> +  mbuf's reference counter. It leads a memory leak of the direct
> +  mbuf. The workaround is to explicitly decrement the reference
> +  counter or use ``rte_pktmbuf_detach2()``.
> 
>  API Changes
>  -----------
> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> index 529debb..c0a592d 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> @@ -1408,6 +1408,7 @@ static inline int rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(struct rte_mempool *pool,
>   *
>   * After attachment we refer the mbuf we attached as 'indirect',
>   * while mbuf we attached to as 'direct'.
> + * The direct mbuf's reference counter is incremented.
>   * Right now, not supported:
>   *  - attachment for already indirect mbuf (e.g. - mi has to be direct).
>   *  - mbuf we trying to attach (mi) is used by someone else
> @@ -1459,15 +1460,50 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_attach(struct rte_mbuf *mi, struct rte_mbuf *m)
>  /**
>   * Detach an indirect packet mbuf.
>   *
> + * Note: It is deprecated.
> + * The direct mbuf's reference counter is not decremented.
> + *
> + *  - restore original mbuf address and length values.
> + *  - reset pktmbuf data and data_len to their default values.
> + *  All other fields of the given packet mbuf will be left intact.
> + *
> + * @param m
> + *   The indirect attached packet mbuf.
> + */
> +static inline void __rte_deprecated rte_pktmbuf_detach(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> +{
> +	struct rte_mempool *mp = m->pool;
> +	uint32_t mbuf_size, buf_len, priv_size;
> +
> +	priv_size = rte_pktmbuf_priv_size(mp);
> +	mbuf_size = sizeof(struct rte_mbuf) + priv_size;
> +	buf_len = rte_pktmbuf_data_room_size(mp);
> +
> +	m->priv_size = priv_size;
> +	m->buf_addr = (char *)m + mbuf_size;
> +	m->buf_physaddr = rte_mempool_virt2phy(mp, m) + mbuf_size;
> +	m->buf_len = (uint16_t)buf_len;
> +	m->data_off = RTE_MIN(RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM, (uint16_t)m->buf_len);
> +	m->data_len = 0;
> +	m->ol_flags = 0;
> +}

I still think it would be good to have a separate function for what rte_pktmbuf_detach()
Is doing right now: restore original values of indirect mbuf.
Probably rename it to rte_pktmbuf_restore() or so and make _detach2() (unatach() ?)
to call it internally. 

> +
> +/**
> + * Detach an indirect packet mbuf.
> + *
>   *  - restore original mbuf address and length values.
>   *  - reset pktmbuf data and data_len to their default values.
>   *  All other fields of the given packet mbuf will be left intact.
> + *  - decrement the direct mbuf's reference counter.
>   *
>   * @param m
>   *   The indirect attached packet mbuf.
> + * @return
> + *   The updated value of the direct mbuf's reference counter.
>   */
> -static inline void rte_pktmbuf_detach(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> +static inline uint16_t rte_pktmbuf_detach2(struct rte_mbuf *m)
>  {
> +	struct rte_mbuf *md = rte_mbuf_from_indirect(m);
>  	struct rte_mempool *mp = m->pool;
>  	uint32_t mbuf_size, buf_len, priv_size;
> 
> @@ -1482,6 +1518,8 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_detach(struct rte_mbuf *m)
>  	m->data_off = RTE_MIN(RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM, (uint16_t)m->buf_len);
>  	m->data_len = 0;
>  	m->ol_flags = 0;
> +
> +	return rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(md, -1);
>  }
> 
>  static inline struct rte_mbuf* __attribute__((always_inline))
> @@ -1497,8 +1535,7 @@ __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(struct rte_mbuf *m)
>  		 */
>  		if (RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(m)) {
>  			struct rte_mbuf *md = rte_mbuf_from_indirect(m);

I don't think there is a need to invoke rte_mbuf_from_indirect() twice.
You can either pass md as a second parameter to _detach2(),
or make detach2() to invoke __rte_mbuf_raw_free()
if rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(md, -1) == 0.
Konstantin

> -			rte_pktmbuf_detach(m);
> -			if (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(md, -1) == 0)
> +			if (rte_pktmbuf_detach2(m) == 0)
>  				__rte_mbuf_raw_free(md);
>  		}
>  		return m;
> --
> 1.9.1

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-05-17 11:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-15 15:50 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Hiroyuki Mikita
2016-05-16  0:05 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-16  2:46   ` Hiroyuki MIKITA
2016-05-16  8:49     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-16  9:13     ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-05-16 16:24       ` Hiroyuki MIKITA
2016-05-16  8:52 ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-16 16:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Hiroyuki Mikita
2016-05-17 10:58   ` Bruce Richardson
2016-05-17 11:06   ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2016-05-17 12:43   ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-05-17 12:59     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-17 13:39       ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-05-17 13:44         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-17 14:19           ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-05-17 15:45             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-17 16:12               ` Hiroyuki MIKITA
2016-05-17 16:35   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Hiroyuki Mikita
2016-05-18 11:58     ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-18 14:29       ` Hiroyuki Mikita
2016-05-18 14:41     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Hiroyuki Mikita
2016-05-18 15:51       ` Olivier Matz
2016-05-19 12:38         ` Thomas Monjalon

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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B51838@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=h.mikita89@gmail.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.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).