From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112A610A3 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:07:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEB121F41; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 05:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 29 Oct 2018 05:07:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=t6YfCg92eDppSBMZ68wmjj+4v8CQtvjGrB8iQRP0P44=; b=PWsaGVeEHAyw nguOD9jZrgp8qJ6BYjXljU0zzYxI8fhveOpvsX0LLFNlftsEG5ABxAF9gLdTtH8S zVgcDrmyRd4ZzrEJU5icVXhNcPzhaOQRxW/qKpVN4/Pi9FVwefQ+aCw99vVMFpB8 5b9Pvw8lZGTbeizRPZ3351TnJax0XTM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=t6YfCg92eDppSBMZ68wmjj+4v8CQtvjGrB8iQRP0P 44=; b=I7+Es8SbyBlacV2tIDpVhYVnwJi4qEZ7rMevozX+I746wEaXeeEsATtnt GwEe2lteqo2d4rglUegB2k7J3JxT4h3Fx5EGkAnEJyn5J3FBmCr3Li877p5QftYh Pss9/QzVYweoC32/MHybtaqoiNqeIUsH+ffhhk4U2Y8HBgoCzjSDlhHJGZuNT+2M jtRe/dzcS6jEq4QVtpuF3wED0XCyzFOYTK47pjNBaVZpmZjs/Y69OcO0C7rTUa/e zLHebSTEp+E9Fprjj8M/v9rdkTlMqtriNX3cP2EQgb2jq6L4Fqt1hmiGzeBBMZMa MjMxm43KFohLRUTFmaVPb7lV0A5FA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 02AA9102EA; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 05:07:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Yao, Lei A" Cc: Alejandro Lucero , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Xu, Qian Q" , "Lin, Xueqin" , anatoly.burakov@intel.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:07:24 +0100 Message-ID: <55033937.TxNRu7Uagg@xps> In-Reply-To: <1593678.TTmrtHRuFR@xps> References: <1538743527-8285-1-git-send-email-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <2DBBFF226F7CF64BAFCA79B681719D954502B75A@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1593678.TTmrtHRuFR@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] use IOVAs check based on DMA mask 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:07:22 -0000 One more comment about this issue, There was no reply to the question asked by Alejandro on October 11th: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-October/115402.html and there were no more reviews despite all my requests: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-October/117475.html Without any more comment, I had to apply the patchset. Now we need to find a solution. Please suggest. 29/10/2018 09:42, Thomas Monjalon: > 29/10/2018 09:23, Yao, Lei A: > > Hi, Lucero, Thomas > > > > This patch set will cause deadlock during memory initialization. > > rte_memseg_walk and try_expand_heap both will lock > > the file &mcfg->memory_hotplug_lock. So dead lock will occur. > > > > #0 rte_memseg_walk > > #1 <-rte_eal_check_dma_mask > > #2 <-alloc_pages_on_heap > > #3 <-try_expand_heap_primary > > #4 <-try_expand_heap > > > > Log as following: > > EAL: TSC frequency is ~2494156 KHz > > EAL: Master lcore 0 is ready (tid=7ffff7fe3c00;cpuset=[0]) > > [New Thread 0x7ffff5e0d700 (LWP 330350)] > > EAL: lcore 1 is ready (tid=7ffff5e0d700;cpuset=[1]) > > EAL: Trying to obtain current memory policy. > > EAL: Setting policy MPOL_PREFERRED for socket 0 > > EAL: Restoring previous memory policy: 0 > > > > Could you have a check on this? A lot of test cases in our validation > > team fail because of this. Thanks a lot! > > Can we just call rte_memseg_walk_thread_unsafe()? > > +Cc Anatoly > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > > 05/10/2018 14:45, Alejandro Lucero: > > > > I sent a patchset about this to be applied on 17.11 stable. The memory > > > > code has had main changes since that version, so here it is the patchset > > > > adjusted to current master repo. > > > > > > > > This patchset adds, mainly, a check for ensuring IOVAs are within a > > > > restricted range due to addressing limitations with some devices. There > > > > are two known cases: NFP and IOMMU VT-d emulation. > > > > > > > > With this check IOVAs out of range are detected and PMDs can abort > > > > initialization. For the VT-d case, IOVA VA mode is allowed as long as > > > > IOVAs are within the supported range, avoiding to forbid IOVA VA by > > > > default. > > > > > > > > For the addressing limitations known cases, there are just 40(NFP) or > > > > 39(VT-d) bits for handling IOVAs. When using IOVA PA, those limitations > > > > imply 1TB(NFP) or 512M(VT-d) as upper limits, which is likely enough for > > > > most systems. With machines using more memory, the added check will > > > > ensure IOVAs within the range. > > > > > > > > With IOVA VA, and because the way the Linux kernel serves mmap calls > > > > in 64 bits systems, 39 or 40 bits are not enough. It is possible to > > > > give an address hint with a lower starting address than the default one > > > > used by the kernel, and then ensuring the mmap uses that hint or hint plus > > > > some offset. With 64 bits systems, the process virtual address space is > > > > large enoguh for doing the hugepages mmaping within the supported > > > range > > > > when those addressing limitations exist. This patchset also adds a change > > > > for using such a hint making the use of IOVA VA a more than likely > > > > possibility when there are those addressing limitations. > > > > > > > > The check is not done by default but just when it is required. This > > > > patchset adds the check for NFP initialization and for setting the IOVA > > > > mode is an emulated VT-d is detected. Also, because the recent patchset > > > > adding dynamic memory allocation, the check is also invoked for ensuring > > > > the new memsegs are within the required range. > > > > > > > > This patchset could be applied to stable 18.05. > > > > > > Applied, thanks