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 E7A7FA0569; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:03:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3AA1C02D; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:03:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C7D1C020 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:03:49 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1584003829; 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=a04XSN6i1T4dAgAVBjoejKB5uJLQ0df4OsedS9+VYP4=; b=Qip770Pyv1P+Ze7rEKIZZqBgxAlpIu8H65JVi+FHRRo0H2Hf2uHIJ22FfpUyQNDJ5OK5bi ArbW/obmoLwD5wyL5533IpcTTTFUjnn9wyQ+XVq2JVoRJQ131OGjU/XuFBq+sWS7aPkoNU TJZEpYbz9Pm9k3T4cRfWdSuHishU2t8= Received: from mail-vk1-f197.google.com (mail-vk1-f197.google.com [209.85.221.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-380-4ftJQ9LMMjOauaPJF1XYvQ-1; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:03:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4ftJQ9LMMjOauaPJF1XYvQ-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id y5so2047026vkg.19 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:03:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dWYAo/P50ogusOCi2ecLwJDIMv7Le904JpnF74cCpb8=; b=ZSABkDXLCX2MjU3y0axyM8B8bqHFS4TJ90oJICqSe9/biqyHynSHp4/x4P3xsdKVoV 5r4IZiPJawtBAVOvDiyIzavWXwxHsAphHFezQvZAlRY8wq6GU9bJA5oIQSj9iLj/TpMi vezA3nQzbwacEaJ8JIRk205/L3Yh/FQYvKKCGNXBpPj7LWJPyQQc5nA30TuocFV5KOrf JycX3OFVEE4DzNw0pQnXbtVB1OXXOTuOwoxBn8mYQ8VPxe94EMNqd3LWqBPrA7CCo7LJ V99BJYTlgNcmyx9K5IW5WJ71rFHg2FtYPZg4epOXGZpd6Y9vPIXBAkDDPrzgO2/qoDKj K7Yw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3JRPukT/soqYsf2ithW25jmFlZgd4AfHvx9fPXwEiZWJn568DS MJZQlWqbziz9LsqDkQFGIYf24NOw3TZ0VSzPe+xdq+ZFZeeQfAWM72urDgdKRLrESo3XnrdzP1i OrN9Qz94tXp/VXceSmdY= X-Received: by 2002:a67:643:: with SMTP id 64mr4793662vsg.180.1584003826966; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:03:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvqJVZbdZJfk5KiSUy5onJJZpX0rVxKSa/F/lTKXWNw2WHnL+2+04HstJcajpO905PG9V0z/I3rP8Hj9x2itwU= X-Received: by 2002:a67:643:: with SMTP id 64mr4793642vsg.180.1584003826658; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:03:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200310133304.39951-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> <20200311143927.76021-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:03:35 +0100 Message-ID: To: Aaron Conole Cc: Harry van Haaren , dev , dpdk stable X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/service: fix exit by resetting service lcores 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 Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:08 PM Aaron Conole wrote: > > David Marchand writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:39 PM Harry van Haaren > > wrote: > >> > >> This commit releases all service cores from their role, > >> returning them to ROLE_RTE on rte_service_finalize(). > >> > >> This may fix an issue relating to the service cores causing > > > > You don't seem convinced. > > > > > >> a race-condition on eal_cleanup(), where the service core > >> could still be executing while the main thread has already > >> free-d the service memory, leading to a segfault. > >> > >> Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept") > >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org > >> > >> Reported-by: David Marchand > >> Reported-by: Aaron Conole > >> Signed-off-by: David Marchand > >> Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren > >> Acked-by: Aaron Conole > > > > I am okay with merging this so that we stop getting random failures of = the ut. > > I think it could also potentially cause errors in user applications that > regularly exit, and which use the service core architecture. So it's > worth getting in now, anyway. Indeed, thanks for the precision. In my defense, we did not get report of such crashes out of the CI. The CI is the main reason why I (selfishly :-)) have been pressing on this issue. --=20 David Marchand