From: Ferruh Yigit <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Andrew Rybchenko <email@example.com>, Thomas Monjalon <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: 方统浩50450 <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 09:04:09 +0000 Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On 1/16/2020 7:43 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > On 1/15/20 11:43 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 15/01/2020 19:35, Ferruh Yigit: >>> On 1/15/2020 6:49 AM, 方统浩50450 wrote: >>>> Hi Ferruh, thanks for your message. >>>> >>>> >>>> We developed a ethtool-dpdk which is secondary process based dpdk 17.08 version. Our device >>>> support hotplug detach, but hotplug deatch is failed when we use ethtool-dpdk.We found the >>>> secondary process will change the shared memory when initializing.Secondary process calls >>>> "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate" function and enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function. >>>> (rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_probe -> rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate -> rte_eth_copy_pci_info) >>>> Then it sets the value of struct "rte_eth_dev_data.dev_flags" to zero.In our platform, this value >>>> is equal to 0x0003.(RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE | RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC),but after reset >>>> the "dev_flags", the value changed to 0x0002.(RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE).So, our device hotplug >>>> detach is failed.I found the similar problem in other dpdk version, include dpdk 19.11.Even though >>>> the deivce hotplug detach is discarded,but i think the shared memory changed is unexpected by primary >>>> process. > > Hold on, just for my understanding. As far as I can see > RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE was removed in 17.11. Does it > change something in above description? Overall secondary overwrites primary values, I think we should fix it independent from the flags involved. > >>> I agree this is the problem. >>> In the driver code, 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' is called only by primary process, >>> >>> but the generic code is faulty. >>> >>> And in 19.11 additionally 'eth_dev_pci_specific_init' also seems has same problem. > > Yes, as I understand RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE, > RTE_ETH_DEV_BONDED_SLAVE, RTE_ETH_DEV_REPRESENTOR and > RTE_ETH_DEV_NOLIVE_MAC_ADDR may be lost because of > reinit (if not restored in other branches). Bad anyway. > >>>> Our driver is ixgbe, i think this problem has a little relationship with driver, Secondary process >>>> enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" by "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate".And I agree your opinion, the helper >>>> function should simple on what it does.I have two ways to fix this problem, one is add an if-statement >>>> >>>> in "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate" function to forbid secondary process enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function, >>>> another way is add an if-statement in "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function to forbid secondary process change >>>> shared memory.And First way need to ensure the "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function won't be called anywhere else. >>>> I think the second way is simple and lower risk. >>> >>> Yes these are the two options. >>> >>> I agree adding check in the 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' covers all cases and safer. >>> BUT my concern was adding decision making to simple/leaf function and make it >>> harder to debug/use, instead of giving what primary/secondary process should >>> call decision in higher level. >>> >>> But I just recognized that some PMDs are calling 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' on >>> secondary process, like mlx4 or szedata2, and most probably this is not their >>> intention. >>> And 'eth_dev->intr_handle' set in 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info', not calling this >>> function may have side affect of 'eth_dev->intr_handle' not set in secondary. >>> >>> With above considerations I am OK to your proposal to cover all cases, Thomas, >>> Andrew, any concern? > > I would put if condition in rte_eth_copy_pci_info(). > It is the function which writes shared space from > secondary process when it should not be done and it > should be fixed there. OK > >> Do you mean drivers need to be fixed? > > I'm not sure that I fully understand it. Since copy function > cares about intr_handle copying I'm afraid that it is not > 100% correct to skip it in secondary process completely as > many drivers do right now. Basically it makes eth_dev structure > in secondary process inconsistent. However, it looks like > most of these drivers simply obtain handle from pci_dev > directly and it explains why they are not affected. > There are exceptions which are potentially bugs, e.g. > drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c: ice_interrupt_handler at the end. > > I think that it would be better if intr_handle is always > correct in eth_dev (both primary and secondary cases) and > drivers use it instead of the same from pci_dev. > OK So this suggest going on with Fang's patch. I only requested an additional note in function comment related to this secondary check.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-16 9:04 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-01-09 12:27 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] ethdev: fix secondary process change share memory Fang TongHao 2020-01-10 7:30 ` Jeff Guo 2020-01-10 7:53 ` 方统浩50450 2020-01-13 5:03 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory Fang TongHao 2020-01-14 14:45 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit 2020-01-15 6:49 ` 方统浩50450 2020-01-15 18:35 ` Ferruh Yigit 2020-01-15 20:43 ` Thomas Monjalon 2020-01-16 7:43 ` Andrew Rybchenko 2020-01-16 9:04 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message] 2020-01-16 11:35 ` 方统浩50450 2020-01-16 12:18 ` Ferruh Yigit 2020-01-17 2:11 ` 方统浩50450 2020-01-16 9:00 ` Ferruh Yigit 2020-01-17 2:08 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Fang TongHao 2020-01-17 8:33 ` Andrew Rybchenko 2020-01-17 17:58 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
patches for DPDK stable branches This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 stable/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 stable stable/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \ email@example.com public-inbox-index stable Example config snippet for mirrors. Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.stable AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git