From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Elad Nachman <eladv6@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Christian <erclists@gmail.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov@nfware.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] kni: Fix request overwritten
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 16:48:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8525082f-eb28-92db-11d3-ef4d24144be4@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACXF7q=p_GSsQEbRwW+547vEsGT2j+8TyB=ViOuzOp6HNm7Ksw@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/4/2021 3:58 PM, Elad Nachman wrote:
> בתאריך יום ב׳, 4 באוק׳ 2021, 17:51, מאת Ferruh Yigit <
> ferruh.yigit@intel.com>:
>
>> On 10/4/2021 3:25 PM, Elad Nachman wrote:
>>
>> Can you please try to not top post, it will make impossible to follow this
>> discussion later from the mail archives.
>>
>>> 1. Userspace will get an error
>>
>> So there is nothing special with returning '-EAGAIN', user will only
>> observe an
>> error.
>> Wasn't initial intention to use '-EAGAIN' to try request again?
>>
> To signal user-space to retry the operation.
>
Not sure if it will reach to the end user. If user is calling "ifconfig <iface>
down", it will just fail right, it won't recognize the error type.
Unless this is common usage by the Linux network drivers, having this usage in
KNI won't help much. I am for handling this in the kernel side if we can.
>>
>>> 2. Waiting with rtnl locked causes a deadlock; waiting with rtnl unlocked
>>> for interface down command causes a crash because of a race condition in
>>> the device delete/unregister list in the kernel.
>>>
>>
>> Why waiting with rthnl lock causes a deadlock? As said below we are already
>> doing it, why it is different with retry logic?
>>
> Because it can be interface down request.
>
(sure you like short answers)
Please help me to see why "interface down" is special. Isn't it point of your
patch to wait the request execution in the userspace even it is an async request?
And yet again, number of retry can be limited.
>
>> I agree to not wait with rtnl unlocked.
>>
>>> FYI,
>>>
>>> Elad.
>>>
>>> בתאריך יום ב׳, 4 באוק׳ 2021, 17:13, מאת Ferruh Yigit <
>>> ferruh.yigit@intel.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 10/4/2021 2:09 PM, Elad Nachman wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> EAGAIN is propogated back to the kernel and to the caller.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So will the user get an error, or it will be handled by the kernel and
>>>> retried?
>>>>
>>>>> We cannot retry from the kni kernel module since we hold the rtnl lock.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not? We are already waiting until a command time out, like
>>>> 'kni_net_open()'
>>>> can retry if 'kni_net_process_request()' returns '-EAGAIN'. And we can
>>>> limit the
>>>> number of retry for safety.
>>>>
>>>>> FYI,
>>>>>
>>>>> Elad
>>>>>
>>>>> בתאריך יום ב׳, 4 באוק׳ 2021, 16:05, מאת Ferruh Yigit <
>>>>> ferruh.yigit@intel.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/2021 11:54 AM, Elad Nachman wrote:
>>>>>>> Fix lack of multiple KNI requests handling support by introducing a
>>>>>>> request in progress flag which will fail additional requests with
>>>>>>> EAGAIN return code if the original request has not been processed
>>>>>>> by user-space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bugzilla ID: 809
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please test this patch, if it solves the issue you reported?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Elad Nachman <eladv6@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> kernel/linux/kni/kni_net.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>>>>> lib/kni/rte_kni.c | 2 ++
>>>>>>> lib/kni/rte_kni_common.h | 1 +
>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -123,7 +124,15 @@ kni_net_process_request(struct net_device *dev,
>>>>>> struct rte_kni_request *req)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mutex_lock(&kni->sync_lock);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + /* Check that existing request has been processed: */
>>>>>>> + cur_req = (struct rte_kni_request *)kni->sync_kva;
>>>>>>> + if (cur_req->req_in_progress) {
>>>>>>> + ret = -EAGAIN;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Overall logic in the KNI looks good to me, this helps to serialize the
>>>>>> requests
>>>>>> even for async ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But can you please clarify how it behaves in the kernel side with
>>>> '-EAGAIN'
>>>>>> return type? Will linux call the ndo again, or will it just fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it just fails should we handle the re-try on '-EAGAIN' within the
>> kni
>>>>>> module?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Elad.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-04 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-24 10:54 Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 13:01 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-04 13:09 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 14:03 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-04 14:25 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 14:51 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-04 14:58 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 15:48 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2021-10-04 16:18 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-04 16:59 ` Eric Christian
2021-10-04 18:27 ` Elad Nachman
2021-10-08 20:23 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-08 21:11 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-04 14:14 ` Eric Christian
2021-10-04 14:56 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=8525082f-eb28-92db-11d3-ef4d24144be4@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=eladv6@gmail.com \
--cc=erclists@gmail.com \
--cc=iryzhov@nfware.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).