DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: yang_y_yi  <yang_y_yi@163.com>
To: "Hu, Jiayu" <jiayu.hu@intel.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	 "olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	 "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	 "yangyi01@inspur.com" <yangyi01@inspur.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] gso: fix free issue of mbuf gso segments attach to
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:44:49 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <54283e4e.3fce.1753f9a7772.Coremail.yang_y_yi@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e3521bc642414b87b937cdd801d9597a@intel.com>

At 2020-10-19 11:17:48, "Hu, Jiayu" <jiayu.hu@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
>> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 4:31 PM
>> To: Hu, Jiayu <jiayu.hu@intel.com>; yang_y_yi <yang_y_yi@163.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; olivier.matz@6wind.com; thomas@monjalon.net;
>> yangyi01@inspur.com
>> Subject: RE: Re:RE: [PATCH] gso: fix free issue of mbuf gso segments attach to
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think it isn't a good idea to free it in rte_gso_segment, maybe
>> > > application
>> > > > > will continue to use this pkt for other purpose, rte_gso_segment
>> > > > > > can't make decision for application without any notice, it is better to
>> > > return
>> > > > > this decision right backt to application.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think, if user wants to keep original packet, he can always call
>> > > > > rte_pktmbuf_refcnt_update(pkt, 1)
>> > > > > just before calling gso function.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Also, as I remember in some cases it is not safe to do free() for input
>> > > packet
>> > > > > (as pkt_out[] can contain input pkt itself). Would it also be user
>> > > responsibility
>> > > > > to determine
>> > > > > such situations?
>> > > >
>> > > > In what case will pkt_out[] contain the input pkt? Can you give an
>> example?
>> > >
>> > > As I can read the code, whenever gso code decides that
>> > > no segmentation is not really needed, or it is not capable
>> > > of doing it properly.
>> > > Let say:
>> > >
>> > > gso_tcp4_segment(struct rte_mbuf *pkt,
>> > >                 uint16_t gso_size,
>> > >                 uint8_t ipid_delta,
>> > >                 struct rte_mempool *direct_pool,
>> > >                 struct rte_mempool *indirect_pool,
>> > >                 struct rte_mbuf **pkts_out,
>> > >                 uint16_t nb_pkts_out)
>> > > {
>> > > ...
>> > > /* Don't process the fragmented packet */
>> > >         ipv4_hdr = (struct rte_ipv4_hdr *)(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(pkt, char *) +
>> > >                         pkt->l2_len);
>> > >         frag_off = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ipv4_hdr->fragment_offset);
>> > >         if (unlikely(IS_FRAGMENTED(frag_off))) {
>> > >                 pkts_out[0] = pkt;
>> > >                 return 1;
>> > >         }
>> > >
>> > >         /* Don't process the packet without data */
>> > >         hdr_offset = pkt->l2_len + pkt->l3_len + pkt->l4_len;
>> > >         if (unlikely(hdr_offset >= pkt->pkt_len)) {
>> > >                 pkts_out[0] = pkt;
>> > >                 return 1;
>> > >         }
>> > >
>> > > That's why in rte_gso_segment() we update refcnt only when ret > 1.
>> >
>> > But in these cases, the value of ret is 1. So we can free input pkt only when
>> > ret > 1. Like:
>> >
>> > -       if (ret > 1) {
>> > -               pkt_seg = pkt;
>> > -               while (pkt_seg) {
>> > -                       rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(pkt_seg, -1);
>> > -                       pkt_seg = pkt_seg->next;
>> > -               }
>> > -       } else if (ret < 0) {
>> > +       if (ret > 1)
>> > +               rte_pktmbuf_free(pkt);
>> > +       else if (ret < 0) {
>> >                 /* Revert the ol_flags in the event of failure. */
>> >                 pkt->ol_flags = ol_flags;
>> >         }
>> 
>> Yes, definitely. I am not arguing about that.
>> My question was to the author of the original patch:
>> He suggests not to free input packet inside gso function and leave it to the
>> user.
>> So, in his proposition, would it also become user responsibility to determine
>> when input packet can be freed (it is not present in pkt_out[]) or not?
>
>@Yi, I am OK with the both designs. If you think it's better to free the input pkt by
>users, you can keep the original design. But one thing to notice is that you need
>to update definition of rte_gso_segment() in rte_gso.h too.
>
>Thanks,
>Jiayu

Ok, I prefer to handle it by users, this is incremental patch for rte_gso_segment description. Is it ok to you?

diff --git a/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.h b/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.h
index 3aab297..3762eba 100644
--- a/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.h
+++ b/lib/librte_gso/rte_gso.h
@@ -89,8 +89,11 @@ struct rte_gso_ctx {
  * the GSO segments are sent to should support transmission of multi-segment
  * packets.
  *
- * If the input packet is GSO'd, its mbuf refcnt reduces by 1. Therefore,
- * when all GSO segments are freed, the input packet is freed automatically.
+ * If the input packet is GSO'd, all the indirect segments are attached to the
+ * input packet.
+ *
+ * rte_gso_segment() will not free the input packet no matter whether it is
+ * GSO'd or not, the application should free it after call rte_gso_segment().
  *
  * If the memory space in pkts_out or MBUF pools is insufficient, this
  * function fails, and it returns (-1) * errno. Otherwise, GSO succeeds,

>> 
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jiayu
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-19  6:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-10  3:10 yang_y_yi
2020-10-13  7:28 ` Hu, Jiayu
2020-10-13 15:39   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-10-14  1:00     ` Hu, Jiayu
2020-10-14  2:56       ` yang_y_yi
2020-10-14 12:05         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-10-15  5:14           ` Hu, Jiayu
2020-10-15 16:16             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-10-16  0:53               ` Hu, Jiayu
2020-10-16  8:31                 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-10-19  3:17                   ` Hu, Jiayu
2020-10-19  6:44                     ` yang_y_yi [this message]
2020-10-19  8:47                       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-10-20  1:16                         ` yang_y_yi
2020-10-19  2:29                 ` yang_y_yi
2020-10-19  2:20               ` yang_y_yi

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=54283e4e.3fce.1753f9a7772.Coremail.yang_y_yi@163.com \
    --to=yang_y_yi@163.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jiayu.hu@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=yangyi01@inspur.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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git