From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5FAA04EA; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 06:46:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A192B88; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 06:46:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pl1-f195.google.com (mail-pl1-f195.google.com [209.85.214.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25D428EE for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 06:46:47 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pl1-f195.google.com with SMTP id k20so7987262pll.13 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:46:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=th8nl0uFneaflvzpHckVR7LOctEVN0r3o9cgjfxmV44=; b=eX7WN+3a1uLQafcieNleauS6NA8L0yXf/CT6PLTKGAHLxSjk5EEUOmuAImq/Ev8SvY hOO6OgYjIIkqsO8+cXn4Nj5OtoWQ51kAws6iYiOcW9Ke5nqMUGjiG0YJLEc/sjCYbZLQ v+Luqkn9xuBFXB7Qwsbq52voTJ04MB/Nu8zZ+6OTk1HKf5or1idK3EDgHLMflM26xAeG O49HvGrpJ7dshjUzvbXFdddmCKtyN8/xNbTKr6e5fIl25tW62jZDugphJNHj7ez08tcA sGvXS29HrNFNc+B0YVuSYJqiEiBpiGv6qbRyLkM3+l84K9q+oNlDmyLi4Ny+keLvBgUW /lfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=th8nl0uFneaflvzpHckVR7LOctEVN0r3o9cgjfxmV44=; b=eCghBcvHztoFzue0AHOVRtUu+/df3V+QuPEz4tmpE0RwBL60XJcgfvPoAsOsDhJFkL I1fg9j3IFsaICbeFaK0NFjescPwC9i4K4j42qblJh7ms1gLbiHcweYEUOrjhim17WDcp Crq1mw5KRQemLBTN/hVSNWQYj+RRcIzJa1uO5JZuuRHCvi5S/lkHEpOnHHohLR6UsQfw z8QZSdbjMY7+49Xw2rcYKb4gzMNtfm+kADTLIcUZXdurBHuFkb3ApZ8KYgHU24VqHOnu r5fiZwe0S0wEYuGbMueY+pqwSmQs6UCwTbO4Kuk1vxxHGPHbnswF6yRG5S5eUzO/Hg9G Q+Vw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUqJTZ9yN3AAq7wVC1MPVtSWmQWcQCsCPjx414q9BvTDHnUFzPT xtAdmhzfcnfPwpPuVn0Rq3o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxf+lTtFwI2LkDnPeSawVNVaRrqgCI2XmwmZ518sxSk7ReqW6RILsoSLFJRn95LAluDYbjYZw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8647:: with SMTP id y7mr13021326plt.285.1575006406656; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:46:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.30.202.27] ([192.47.164.146]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g26sm10389972pfo.128.2019.11.28.21.46.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:46:46 -0800 (PST) To: "Burakov, Anatoly" , David Marchand Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , dev , Yasufumi Ogawa References: <20190724082031.45546-1-yasufum.o@gmail.com> <20191113214346.33749-1-yasufum.o@gmail.com> <20191113214346.33749-2-yasufum.o@gmail.com> <6a6d7228-f22b-9ba5-c288-1701b738b7c4@intel.com> <61dd1730-3c80-da57-126d-84596b23ff31@gmail.com> From: Yasufumi Ogawa Message-ID: <4144a7d7-f6af-8ebf-e572-d907e1975837@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:44:40 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/1] fbarray: fix duplicated fbarray file in secondary X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Anatoly, On 2019/11/27 19:26, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 26-Nov-19 7:40 PM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> Sorry for slow reply. >> >> On 2019/11/14 21:27, David Marchand wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:42 PM Yasufumi Ogawa >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2019/11/14 2:01, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>>> On 13-Nov-19 9:43 PM, yasufum.o@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> From: Yasufumi Ogawa >>>>>> >>>>>> In secondary_msl_create_walk(), it creates a file for fbarrays >>>>>> with its >>>>>> PID for reserving unique name among secondary processes. However, it >>>>>> does not work if several secondaries run as app containers because >>>>>> each >>>>>> of containerized secondary has PID 1, and failed to reserve unique >>>>>> name >>>>>> other than first one. To reserve unique name in each of >>>>>> containers, use >>>>>> hostname in addition to PID. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yasufumi Ogawa >>>>>> --- >>>>>>    lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- >>>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c >>>>>> b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c >>>>>> index af6d0d023..11de6d4d6 100644 >>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c >>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c >>>>>> @@ -1365,6 +1365,12 @@ secondary_msl_create_walk(const struct >>>>>> rte_memseg_list *msl, >>>>>>        struct rte_memseg_list *primary_msl, *local_msl; >>>>>>        char name[PATH_MAX]; >>>>>>        int msl_idx, ret; >>>>>> +    char hostname[HOST_NAME_MAX+1] = { 0 }; >>>>>> +    /* filename of secondary's fbarray is defined such as >>>>>> +     * "fbarray_memseg-1048576k-0-0_PID_HOSTNAME" and length of PID >>>>>> +     * can be 7 digits maximumly. >>>>>> +     */ >>>>>> +    int fbarray_sec_name_len = 32 + 7 + 1 + HOST_NAME_MAX + 1; >>>>> >>>>> What does 32 stand for? Maybe #define both 32 and 7 values? >>>> Hi Anatoly, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your comments! If my understanding is correct, the prefix >>>> "fbarray_memseg-1048576k-0-0_" is 28 digits and it could be larger if >>>> using the size of hugepage or the number of NUMA nodes are larger >>>> possibly. However, I think 32 digits is still enough. >>>> >>>>   > Maybe #define both 32 and 7 values? >>>> Yes. I think it should be better to use #define if this values are >>>> referred several times. >>> >>> >>> We can truncate to RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN in all cases. >>> And iiuc, rte_fbarray_init will refuse any longer name anyway. >> Could I confirm the issue? I've understood that it is failed to >> validate the name of fbarray in fully_validate() at >> "lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_fbarray.c:697". >> >> static int >> fully_validate(const char *name, unsigned int elt_sz, unsigned int len) >> { >>          if (name == NULL || elt_sz == 0 || len == 0 || len > INT_MAX) { >>                  rte_errno = EINVAL; >>                  return -1; >>          } >> >>          if (strnlen(name, RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN) == >> RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN) { >>                  rte_errno = ENAMETOOLONG; >>                  return -1; >>          } >>          return 0; >> } >> >> I should overwrite the definition of RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN as previous >> patch in this case, and it causes an ABI breakage, right? If so, I >> would like to make the change and give up to update stable release. >> >> Thanks, >> Yasufumi >> > > It seems we're getting into bikeshedding... > > We can do this without ABI breakage. You could have just used > RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN as max fbarray name length for fbarray_sec_name_len > (i.e. that would include hostname + pid + whatever else there is). The > name, as David has pointed out, would be truncated to > RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN anyway (or, more precisely, it will be refused if > it's longer than that), so this is the most you can have - so you can > just use that as the maximum. I sent v8 patch to change the size of RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN itself to be allowed the size of secondary's fbarray over 64 bytes. I appreciate if you agree that. Thanks, Yasufumi