DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: "Stojaczyk, Dariusz" <dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] dev: fix attach rollback of a device that was already attached
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:10:45 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611532EA1D0@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181123144506.95367-1-dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stojaczyk, Dariusz
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 6:45 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; Stojaczyk, Dariusz <dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com>;
> Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] dev: fix attach rollback of a device that was already attached
> 
> When primary process receives an IPC attach request of a device that's already
> locally-attached, it doesn't setup its variables properly and is prone to segfaulting
> on a subsequent rollback.
> 
> `ret = local_dev_probe(req->devargs, &dev)`
> 
> The above function will set `dev` pointer to the proper device *unless* it returns
> with error. One of those errors is -EEXIST, which the hotplug function explicitly
> ignores. For -EEXIST, it proceeds with attaching the device and expects the dev
> pointer to be valid.

Good capture.
> 
> Despite this patch being a fix, it also introduces a design decision - when any
> secondary process fails to attach a device, the primary process that already had
> the device attached won't attempt to detach that device locally as a part of the
> rollback routine.
> Primary process would have already printed a message "Failed to [...] on
> secondary" and now it will also print a warning "Devices may not be in sync [...]".

A little bit concern for this.
we may try to avoid the abnormal situation that device is not synced.
The scenario you describe actually is start from an abnormal situation due to some previous error.
so is it better to always take chance to end up with a normal situation.

It looks better for me if we can fixed it in local_dev_probe to return a valid device with -EEXIST.

> 
> Fixes: ac9e4a17370f ("eal: support attach/detach shared device from
> secondary")
> Cc: qi.z.zhang@intel.com
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darek Stojaczyk <dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/common/hotplug_mp.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/hotplug_mp.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/hotplug_mp.c
> index 7c9fcc46c..7ee074a31 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/hotplug_mp.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/hotplug_mp.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ __handle_secondary_request(void *param)
>  		(const struct eal_dev_mp_req *)msg->param;
>  	struct eal_dev_mp_req tmp_req;
>  	struct rte_devargs *da;
> -	struct rte_device *dev;
> +	struct rte_device *dev = NULL;
>  	struct rte_bus *bus;
>  	int ret = 0;
> 
> @@ -168,7 +168,15 @@ __handle_secondary_request(void *param)
>  	if (req->t == EAL_DEV_REQ_TYPE_ATTACH) {
>  		tmp_req.t = EAL_DEV_REQ_TYPE_ATTACH_ROLLBACK;
>  		eal_dev_hotplug_request_to_secondary(&tmp_req);
> -		local_dev_remove(dev);
> +		if (dev == NULL) {
> +			/* device was already attached at the time we got the
> +			 * request, don't detach it now.
> +			 */
> +			RTE_LOG(WARNING, EAL,
> +				"Devices in secondary may not sync with primary\n");
> +		} else {
> +			local_dev_remove(dev);
> +		}
>  	} else {
>  		tmp_req.t = EAL_DEV_REQ_TYPE_DETACH_ROLLBACK;
>  		eal_dev_hotplug_request_to_secondary(&tmp_req);
> --
> 2.17.1

  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-23 19:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-23 14:45 Darek Stojaczyk
2018-11-23 19:10 ` Zhang, Qi Z [this message]
2018-11-23 20:29   ` Stojaczyk, Dariusz
2018-11-23 21:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Darek Stojaczyk
2018-11-25 12:25   ` 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=039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611532EA1D0@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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).