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 5C111A0093; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:00:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E238D1D937; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:00:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52721D91B for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 11:00:23 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: uBAx2s2GENsVN6SptHQzl51DqjvCnlKAGwyakxb+lLZQuVJdeG5ukNJhlNJE7KI63lVIGVBqkH BQN72JZvREmg== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 May 2020 02:00:23 -0700 IronPort-SDR: zVJdFgXfU8RaK2m9bPloObkYkfpfHr54qJ+c2d9tIFdoJ2ZZeM98g6HlCr8/ZJn9xRdyUZJbgr fa24/GOb0N/w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,421,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="412699230" Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.251.20.51]) ([10.251.20.51]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 May 2020 02:00:21 -0700 To: oulijun , David Marchand Cc: Van Haaren Harry , dev , David Hunt , "Pattan, Reshma" References: From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <8e8d4052-7d2d-6e1a-6cac-0c04f8d236f0@intel.com> Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 10:00:20 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 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] =?utf-8?b?44CQQlVHIFJFUE9SVOOAkWwzZndkLXBvd2VyIGNhbiBu?= =?utf-8?q?ot_exit_by_ctrl+c?= 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" On 22-May-20 9:17 AM, oulijun wrote: > > > 在 2020/5/20 15:22, David Marchand 写道: >> Hello, >> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:18 AM oulijun wrote: >>>      I am using 20.05-rc2 version to test based on HNS3 NIC hardware, >>> and >>> found that after starting l3fwd-power, >>> >>> using ctrl+c cannot force quit. But I revert the patch(33666b4 service: >>> fix crash on exit) and it is ok. >> >> We had a fix in rc1 that is supposed to fix this. >> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit?id=613ce6691c0d5ac0f99d7995f1e8e4ac86643882 >> >> >> Copying Anatoly and David H. too. >> > Hi, David Marchand >    I am only merged the patch(examples/l3fwd-power: implement proper > shutdown) based on 20.05-rc0 and test. Why are you testing 20.05-rc0 when there is a later version that already has all of this fixed? What's the point of creating additional difficulties for yourself, and, more importantly, reporting bugs to the community that are already fixed while also not testing the version that has those fixes? What are you trying to do that requires you to use rc0 instead of rc2 or later? We know rc0 was buggy. We had one patch (linked to by David above) in rc1 that fixed it. We had another one in rc2 (linked by myself in another email: https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=f4d1e19c293dc95073614f630ea729cf0bfb57b7) which completed the fix. Both of these patches are present in rc2 and later. So why not try and test rc2 or laster, instead of cherry-picking patches on top of rc0? the bug is not resolved. > Can you provide me with complete solution?  I want to understand the > cause of the whole problem > The cause of the problem is described in the commit messages for the patches. The one David linked to was because l3fwd was exiting incorrectly and was relying on particulars of implementation of rte_exit() which exited the application straight away, without waiting for threads to finish. The one i linked to fixed an additional issue related to waiting for interrupts - there was no timeout, so the thread never woke up if there was no traffic, and thus rte_exit() couldn't finish as well. All of the above was fixed by rc2, and later versions have these fixes as well. So, why are you insisting on using an outdated version for testing? -- Thanks, Anatoly