From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F59A067F for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 11:46:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7C31B136; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 11:46:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F58B1B136; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 11:46:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A8921BA9; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:46:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:46:25 -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=ikQfBx1gRR4Lcg0hHZofHn0NYlJkqgpPlGH623M5Z+A=; b=dniNda0aDD5O Or8NefAg/6+ccGCcdDlL84eaM4ZWcAalQgSf5ee7kEvOtaiqE81afm8ysAdgxY5Q p5uz5rvlDWFashckIo+0XwfV5FHbn0Sfw6G8zD5Y1FQI8iR4hDkVoGBkggzZZPYq 0X3QBBER0+jkZaJqMzbYkUAgsRsKOg4= 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=fm2; bh=ikQfBx1gRR4Lcg0hHZofHn0NYlJkqgpPlGH623M5Z +A=; b=eJtn5mC1NyKwnx48bfbFJTFPfl0RGvL8zBjuKPEj7M7GVvjVgfFr8dr/u Al0f1mHWua6Gh/MuEw1ek9WRjwxoDf1lwjomvTu3SnrgrP9ZRc6iv8st5KTRAPq0 jlOa6fOvYm3GaKIoLdN0nKY+DgXE8cYZs83/+LwNHb98aGfOS1Pm034QInkylfcF AdvWCD8BdzTg2uPCFblfMPZuhTeZz+gne53yTakc9B9IPNbhRWWTVdAlgtW5bbTI vOjm6RB/5/RH+f8VFzluuc+ZgatuYOedoZ4ZhWeHS3CF6dVQiOKa0fHCZgAvgiof VuRVoLgrorUMU+QHVAwfYvO3GdrMA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrkeeggddvtdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd 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 51035E469F; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:46:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Cc: "Stojaczyk, Dariusz" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "Burakov, Anatoly" , "stable@dpdk.org" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 11:46:22 +0100 Message-ID: <2018712.ubzJDVHxhL@xps> In-Reply-To: <20190328104313.GA1418@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190326184331.13850-1-dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com> <1752426.1oQredii45@xps> <20190328104313.GA1418@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: initialize alarms early X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" 28/03/2019 11:43, Bruce Richardson: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:42:40PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 27/03/2019 21:33, Stojaczyk, Dariusz: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > > > 26/03/2019 19:43, Darek Stojaczyk: > > > > > We currently initialize rte_alarms after starting > > > > > to listen for IPC hotplug requests, which gives > > > > > us a data race window. Upon receiving such hotplug > > > > > request we always try to set an alarm and this > > > > > obviously doesn't work if the alarms weren't > > > > > initialized yet. > > > > > > > > > > To fix it, we initialize alarms before starting > > > > > to listen for IPC hotplug messages. Specifically, > > > > > we move rte_eal_alarm_init() right after > > > > > rte_eal_intr_init() as it makes some sense to > > > > > keep those two close to each other. > > > > > > > > I wonder which regression it will bring :) > > > > The experience shows that we cannot touch this function > > > > without introducing a regression. Please check twice. > > > > > > Hah, ok - I'll check again the possible outcomes of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 244d5130719c ("eal: enable hotplug on multi-process") > > > > > Cc: Qi Zhang > > > > > Cc: Anatoly Burakov > > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darek Stojaczyk > > > > > --- > > > > > lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal.c | 12 ++++++------ > > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > You probably need to update the FreeBSD version too. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, that I cannot do. First of all, in bsd code I don't see > > > rte_mp_dev_hotplug_init() called anywhere, as if bsd > > > did not listen for IPC hotplug messages at all and hence did > > > not have any data race in this area. Second, I would be > > > afraid to touch any bsd code as I'm not running any bsd > > > system. > > > > The problem is the consistency between OSes. > > May you ask help here? Bruce is maintaining the FreeBSD side. > > > I don't think we support IPC or hotplug on BSD, so I don't think this patch > is relevant on the BSD side. Yes, but then, the initialization order is different on Linux and BSD. I'm thinking about consistency and maintenance ease.