From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CF041CEC; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 16:40:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB3C43084; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 16:40:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3EF43081 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 16:40:31 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1676907630; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2YLasB+yCwRR2oPGs2cHrzxB4hAZ74Ou6vu4kTbiPTw=; b=TjFIHC5u90dQMRSN5E6YA92Ehb3vbTYjAMg4Tp/kAyyN3f72nTkEr3zKOtVSqGOrJJraIV IMClOcMSitXbxKRCg7I/gyn3G5oyYXTBS0Y30GmXjkPNReUX9jVEtXlrYz6EXESwQ7xrRM 4UPOczptMmZu0pgbGj7HrxoQaJZzkvc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-649-JDlNuaEcMCiJkqMM9cZ_OA-1; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:40:28 -0500 X-MC-Unique: JDlNuaEcMCiJkqMM9cZ_OA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C87480D0E8; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 15:40:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.39.208.21] (unknown [10.39.208.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B1DE140EBF6; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 15:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <05a63c31-04cd-6aba-29b2-708987de9432@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 16:40:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/13] test/bbdev: extend support for large TB To: "Vargas, Hernan" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "gakhil@marvell.com" , "Rix, Tom" Cc: "Chautru, Nicolas" , "Zhang, Qi Z" References: <20230117165023.20567-1-hernan.vargas@intel.com> <20230117165023.20567-9-hernan.vargas@intel.com> <58e9fd37-30db-c902-13bf-136bf0415d2b@redhat.com> From: Maxime Coquelin In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On 2/13/23 21:20, Vargas, Hernan wrote: > Hi Maxime, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Maxime Coquelin >> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 5:29 AM >> To: Vargas, Hernan ; dev@dpdk.org; >> gakhil@marvell.com; Rix, Tom >> Cc: Chautru, Nicolas ; Zhang, Qi Z >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/13] test/bbdev: extend support for large TB >> >> >> >> On 1/17/23 17:50, Hernan Vargas wrote: >>> Add support for large TB when it cannot fit into a true mbuf. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hernan Vargas >>> --- >>> app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c | 21 ++++++++++++--------- >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> index 69b86cdeb1..fdf7a28ba2 100644 >>> --- a/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> +++ b/app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c >>> @@ -1072,8 +1072,6 @@ init_op_data_objs(struct rte_bbdev_op_data >> *bufs, >>> * Special case when DPDK mbuf cannot handle >>> * the required input size >>> */ >>> - printf("Warning: Larger input size than DPDK mbuf >> %d\n", >>> - seg->length); >>> large_input = true; >>> } >>> bufs[i].data = m_head; >>> @@ -2030,6 +2028,7 @@ validate_op_chain(struct rte_bbdev_op_data >> *op, >>> struct rte_mbuf *m = op->data; >>> uint8_t nb_dst_segments = orig_op->nb_segments; >>> uint32_t total_data_size = 0; >>> + bool ignore_mbuf = false; /* ignore mbuf limitations */ >>> >>> TEST_ASSERT(nb_dst_segments == m->nb_segs, >>> "Number of segments differ in original (%u) and filled >> (%u) op", >>> @@ -2042,21 +2041,25 @@ validate_op_chain(struct rte_bbdev_op_data >> *op, >>> uint16_t data_len = rte_pktmbuf_data_len(m) - offset; >>> total_data_size += orig_op->segments[i].length; >>> >>> - TEST_ASSERT(orig_op->segments[i].length == data_len, >>> - "Length of segment differ in original (%u) and >> filled (%u) op", >>> - orig_op->segments[i].length, data_len); >>> + if (orig_op->segments[i].length > >> RTE_BBDEV_LDPC_E_MAX_MBUF) >>> + ignore_mbuf = true; >>> + if (!ignore_mbuf) >>> + TEST_ASSERT(orig_op->segments[i].length == >> data_len, >>> + "Length of segment differ in original >> (%u) and filled (%u) op", >>> + orig_op->segments[i].length, >> data_len); >>> TEST_ASSERT_BUFFERS_ARE_EQUAL(orig_op- >>> segments[i].addr, >>> rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(m, uint32_t *, >> offset), >>> - data_len, >>> + orig_op->segments[i].length, >> >> Isn't it ending up in performing out of bounds access in the mbuf? > > No, in the case when ignore_mbuf is set to true, we use a "fake" mbuf allocated in memory with rte_malloc. > The size allocated is segments[i].length. Ok. Thanks, Maxime > Thanks > >>> "Output buffers (CB=%u) are not equal", i); >>> m = m->next; >>> } >>> >>> /* Validate total mbuf pkt length */ >>> uint32_t pkt_len = rte_pktmbuf_pkt_len(op->data) - op->offset; >>> - TEST_ASSERT(total_data_size == pkt_len, >>> - "Length of data differ in original (%u) and filled (%u) >> op", >>> - total_data_size, pkt_len); >>> + if (!ignore_mbuf) >>> + TEST_ASSERT(total_data_size == pkt_len, >>> + "Length of data differ in original (%u) and >> filled (%u) op", >>> + total_data_size, pkt_len); >>> >>> return TEST_SUCCESS; >>> } >