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 DE754A04BC; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:28:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBB31BEB4; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:28:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBAC1BEA1 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:28:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1602152924; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=jxjcYpG0W957FMeoYm8n6e6iEgfZyKI44O0+W4I1HhU=; b=AAVh1NKMo+M1TkfCiUEbR2bSSBI/jXDTQoASe2kOJFYGsKnQBl2RhC4Pk/aGlFWonei5Fo kZvkxerd9GKcdfYUIXV3ZPCNj9ApcCOaRCAADHwo/pw+H/vIPLuVOpiUO3JvNjSXxJDy/t tn+W4xIVPjUr6qJX3G78by+WotJvdbA= Received: from mail-vk1-f198.google.com (mail-vk1-f198.google.com [209.85.221.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-432-o0Ca6xkOPYO-JA5LOda8Ow-1; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 06:28:41 -0400 X-MC-Unique: o0Ca6xkOPYO-JA5LOda8Ow-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id e82so926877vke.9 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 03:28:41 -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=jxjcYpG0W957FMeoYm8n6e6iEgfZyKI44O0+W4I1HhU=; b=TebXr05qRnQ1sC41OltyTtT97dzQS7Dqph6CLBoywrDV/yHulrpdaMw9iD1g047Fl5 mF1MlwfHX/cCt6sz2U6T9IF72nJC7EE8aBx90d1dLM+yPZvxGIhlrrCirUDQGw0QJo+R pTHESfDo3xHSdpffOulfEHrYwalotcmvJt9lm5b8ulk8JgxA/YbRhAPCzEI6KFzFMWwT BdieTJuq9iknag3YblPnUTQFlP3706KUz2R5vHhCqEyANpIiLhFNuMIverZRwacqNcFl Ku6I4WKD3/a/4qcQQbXL2geZsvO1+yLllOzQ19nNX/9BFR90Hm7fx1CAq58wNSl7xSD6 fQ4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531z2AzZwdp75Zlf5MAYk5B1g3/qgmuYOguWP+6l7iQoWe1vxmtw ur/5xHIhSYnecDOBGWUQgDUxpjx2aYYYp55v48JizvOGysCvh4SuT5iVySM3CT1pQ+8MTB4YGfP 7MKdV1T62OK84I/n7fbM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3121:: with SMTP id f1mr4217209vsh.10.1602152920647; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 03:28:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgIxPX5DnIUxMjFFc4kLc/KqD/q11ir+ZXCvwBNf8FYv5Nu26vuJsUP0RcP+xATwEf4eN9SSUPz8pL0+uA9Bw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3121:: with SMTP id f1mr4217201vsh.10.1602152920406; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 03:28:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1599662474-44882-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com> <1599662474-44882-2-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:28:29 +0200 Message-ID: To: Erik Gabriel Carrillo Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "stable@dpdk.org" , nd , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Sarosh Arif Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] timer: add limitation note for sync stop and reset 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 Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:23 AM Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > If a timer's callback function calls rte_timer_reset_sync() or > > rte_timer_stop_sync() on another timer that is in the RUNNING state and > > owned by the current lcore, the *_sync() calls will loop indefinitely. > > > > Relatedly, if a timer's callback function calls *_sync() on another timer that is > > in the RUNNING state and is owned by a different lcore, but a timer callback > > function runs on that different lcore and calls > > *_sync() on a timer that is in the RUNNING state and owned by the current > > lcore, the two lcores will loop indefinitely. > > > > Add a note in the rte_timer_stop_sync and rte_timer_reset_sync > > documentation that indicates that these APIs should not be used inside > > timer callback functions in order to avoid the hangs described above, and > > suggests an alternative. > > > > Bugzilla ID: 491 > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli Applied, thanks. Since we go with documenting a limitation, should we mark the original patches [1] and [2] as rejected instead of deferred? 1: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/75156/ 2: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/73683/ -- David Marchand