From: Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: don't override mbuf buffer length
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:03:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <548085EB.4080101@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141204153204.GD9300@bricha3-MOBL3>
On 04/12/2014 16:32, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:29:04PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Richardson, Bruce
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:15 PM
>>> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
>>> Cc: Jean-Mickael Guerin; dev@dpdk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: don't override mbuf buffer length
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 02:50:11PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Mickael Guerin
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:26 PM
>>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: don't override mbuf buffer length
>>>>>
>>>>> The template mbuf_initializer is hard coded with a buflen which
>>>>> might have been set differently by the application at the time of
>>>>> mbuf pool creation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Switch to a mbuf allocation, to fetch the correct default values.
>>>>> There is no performance impact because this is not a data-plane API.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
>>>>> Fixes: 0ff3324da2 ("ixgbe: rework vector pmd following mbuf changes")
>>>>> ---
>>>>> lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
>>>>> index c1b5a78..f7b02f5 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
>>>>> @@ -732,17 +732,22 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops = {
>>>>> int
>>>>> ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - struct rte_mbuf mb_def = { .buf_addr = 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */
>>>>> + struct rte_mbuf *mb_def;
>>>>>
>>>>> - mb_def.nb_segs = 1;
>>>>> - mb_def.data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
>>>>> - mb_def.buf_len = rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct rte_mbuf);
>>>>> - mb_def.port = rxq->port_id;
>>>>> - rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1);
>>>>> + mb_def = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(rxq->mb_pool);
>>>>
>>>> Could you explain to me, what is an advantage of using dynamic allocation vs local struct here?
>>>> I don't see any.
>>>
>>> It means that we get an mbuf that is initialized as done by the initialization
>>> function passed to the mempool_create call. The static variable method assumes
>>> that we configure the mbuf using default setting for buf_len etc.
>>>
>>
>> I understand that, but why it can't be done in some other way?
>> Without allocating/freeing?
>> Let say, at mempool_create() store obj_init() and then add ability to call it again?
This is a good idea, useful in other places of mbuf API.
>> Anyway, it doesn't look to me like a critical problem, that requires an urgent patch for 1.8.
>>
This is about data corruption - a simple function like
rte_pktmbuf_tailroom() returns an incorrect value...
Let me try obj_init() variant and we will see if it is acceptable in 1.8
- it does not look a big change after all.
>>>> Plus if rte_pktmbuf_alloc() would fail, we'll leave our rx queue not configured properly.
>>>> As I can see ixgbe_dev_rx_queue_setup() doesn't check the return value of > ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup()
>>>> (as it is just not supposed to fail).
>>>> So ixgbe_dev_rx_queue_setup() will return OK for unconfigured RX queue.
>>>
>>> Good catch, that's something that should perhaps be looked at in a V2 patch, I
>>> think.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + if (mb_def == NULL) {
>>>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup: could not allocate one mbuf");
>>>>> + return -1;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + /* nb_segs, refcnt, data_off and buf_len are already set */
>>>>> + mb_def->port = rxq->port_id;
>>>>>
>>>>> /* prevent compiler reordering: rearm_data covers previous fields */
>>>>> rte_compiler_barrier();
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we need it here.
>>>
>>> I think we might, as the compiler doesn't know that the rearm data overlaps
>>> with the previously set fields, so may reorder the reads and writes thinking
>>> they are independent.
>>
>> Why it doesn't?
>> I suppose compiler has all the knowledge of the mbuf structure layout at that point.
>> Or there is a some sort of bug in some version of the compiler?
>>
>
> No, we're just violating the layout here by dereferencing past the end of the array :-)
>
> /Bruce
>
>>>>
>>>>> - rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def.rearm_data);
>>>>> + rxq->mbuf_initializer = *((uint64_t *)&mb_def->rearm_data);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + rte_pktmbuf_free(mb_def);
>>>>> +
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.1.3
>>>>
>>>> Somy vote - NACK for the whole series.
>>>> Konstantin
>>>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-04 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-04 14:26 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] ixgbe: bug fixes for RX vector mode Jean-Mickael Guerin
2014-12-04 14:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ixgbe: fix setup of mbuf initializer template Jean-Mickael Guerin
2014-12-04 14:39 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-12-04 14:42 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 15:15 ` Jean-Mickael Guerin
2014-12-04 16:22 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-05 22:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-04 14:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: don't override mbuf buffer length Jean-Mickael Guerin
2014-12-04 14:40 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-12-04 14:50 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 15:15 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-12-04 15:29 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 15:32 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-12-04 16:03 ` Jean-Mickael Guerin [this message]
2014-12-04 16:20 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 15:48 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-04 16:05 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 16:18 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 16:57 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 16:58 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-12-04 17:11 ` Jean-Mickael Guerin
2014-12-04 17:19 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-12-04 17:17 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-04 17:22 ` Bruce Richardson
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=548085EB.4080101@6wind.com \
--to=jean-mickael.guerin@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@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).