Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ixgbe: Fix disable interrupt twice

["Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qiu, Michael
> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:57 AM
> To: Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com>; Liu, Yong <yong.liu@intel.com>;
> Liang, Cunming <cunming.liang@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ixgbe: Fix disable interrupt twice
> 
> On 2/2/2016 10:14 AM, Zhang, Helin wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Qiu, Michael
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:07 AM
> >> To: Lu, Wenzhuo; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Zhou, Danny; Liu, Yong; Liang, Cunming; Zhang, Helin
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ixgbe: Fix disable interrupt twice
> >>
> >> [+cc helin]
> >>
> >> On 2/2/2016 9:03 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> >>> Hi Michael,
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Qiu, Michael
> >>>> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 4:05 PM
> >>>> To: Lu, Wenzhuo; dev@dpdk.org
> >>>> Cc: Zhou, Danny; Liu, Yong; Liang, Cunming
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ixgbe: Fix disable interrupt twice
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/29/2016 4:07 PM, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Michael,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Qiu, Michael
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 1:58 PM
> >>>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >>>>>> Cc: Zhou, Danny; Liu, Yong; Liang, Cunming; Lu, Wenzhuo; Qiu,
> >>>>>> Michael
> >>>>>> Subject: [PATCH v2] ixgbe: Fix disable interrupt twice
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Currently, ixgbe vf and pf will disable interrupt twice in stop
> >>>>>> stage and uninit stage. It will cause an error:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     testpmd> quit
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     Shutting down port 0...
> >>>>>>     Stopping ports...
> >>>>>>     Done
> >>>>>>     Closing ports...
> >>>>>>     EAL: Error disabling MSI-X interrupts for fd 26
> >>>>>>     Done
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Becasue the interrupt already been disabled in stop stage.
> >>>>>> Since it is enabled in init stage, better remove from stop stage.
> >>>>> I'm afraid it's not a good idea to just remove the intr_disable
> >>>>> from
> >> dev_stop.
> >>>>> I think dev_stop have the chance to be used independently with
> >>>>> dev_unint. In
> >>>> this scenario, we still need intr_disable, right?
> >>>>> Maybe what we need is some check before we disable the intr:)
> >>>> Yes, indeed we need some check in disable intr, but it need
> >>>> additional fields in "struct rte_intr_handle",  and it's much saft
> >>>> to do so, but as I check i40e/fm10k code, only ixgbe disable it in
> dev_stop().
> >>> I found fm10k doesn't enable intr in dev_start. So, I think it's OK.
> >>> But i40e
> >> enables intr in dev_start.
> >>> To my opinion, it's more like i40e misses the intr_disable in dev_stop.
> >> I don't think i40e miss it, because it not the right please to disable interrupt.
> >> because all interrupts are enabled in init stage.
> >>
> >> Actually, ixgbe enable the interrupt in init stage, but in dev_start,
> >> it disable it first and re-enable, so it just the same with doing nothing about
> interrupt.
> >>
> >> Just think below:
> >>
> >> 1. start the port.(interrupt already enabled in init stage, disable
> >> -->
> >> re-enable)
> >> 2. stop the port.(disable interrupt)
> >> 3. start port again(Try to disable, but failed, already disabled)
> >>
> >> Would you think the code has issue?
> > [Zhang, Helin] in ixgbe PMD, it can be seen that uninit() calls
> > dev_close(), which calls dev_stop(). So I think the disabling can be done only in
> dev_stop().
> > All others can make use of dev_stop to disable the interrupt.
> 
> As I said, if it is in dev_stop, it will has issue when dev_start --> dev_stop -->
> dev_start, this also could applied in i40e and fm10k. If you want to put it in
> dev_stop, better to remove enable interrupts in init stage, and only put it in
> dev_start.
Oh, yes, you are talking about the refactoring. That's good, and reasonable.
Please do more validation with LSC, mailbox, rx interrupts, to make sure there
is no issue introduced.

Thanks,
Helin

> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> > Regards,
> > Helin
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>> Maybe we can follow fm10k's style.
> >>>
> >>>> On other hand, if we remove it in dev_stop, any side effect? In
> >>>> ixgbe start, it will always disable it first and then re-enable it, so it's safe.
> >>> I think you mean we can disable intr anyway even if it has been disabled.
> >> Actually, we couldn't, DPDK call VFIO ioctl to kernel to disable
> >> interrupts, and if we try disable twice, it will return and error.
> >> That's why I mean we need a flag to show the interrupts stats. If it
> >> already disabled, we do not need call in to kernel. just return and
> >> give a warning message.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>>  Sounds more like why we don't
> >>> need this patch :)
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Michael
> >